Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now been given grant-maintained status.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I have approved 34 of the 46 proposals for grant-maintained status which have so far reached me for a decision. More schools have now been approved for grant-maintained status than the number of secondary schools in over half the English local education authorities.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Does he agree that even more schools would apply for grant-maintained status if they could appreciate the benefits that would flow from such status—they would fill staff vacancies much more quickly, they could use their funds to purchase additional books and classroom equipment and, above all, it would lift the dead hand of the local educational authority from the life of the school so that the school could decide what was best for its pupils?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. By way of illustration, he will have noticed that one grant-maintained school has increased its spending on books and equipment by 58 per cent. in its first year because of the flexibility that such status has given it. In addition, grant-maintained status is good for teacher morale because, with the governors, teachers are in full charge of their schools. Such status is popular with parents, as can be seen from the considerably increased number of parents who want to send their children to grant-maintained schools.

Ms. Primarolo: Why has the Secretary of State still not acted on the court judgment which, five weeks ago, declared that his action in relation to Beechen Cliff was illegal? When will he stop flouting the law and accept his responsibilities to all children in the Bath area?

Mr. MacGregor: I am urgently reconsidering the proposals in the light of the High Court judgment. I cannot make any comment on their substance today as I am still considering them. However, the court judgment relates to only one set of proposals; the principle of the grant-maintained option being available to schools is not in question.

Primary School Teachers

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the additional time which teachers in primary schools will spend on administration as a result of the introduction of the national curriculum and assessment at seven and 11 years.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): We are awaiting the School Examinations and Assessment Council's advice about the administrative implications of the assessment arrangements for seven-year-olds in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science, in the light of the pilot assessments being conducted in 2 per cent. of primary schools this summer.

Mrs. Hicks: During the past term I have taken every opportunity to visit as many primary schools as I can in my constituency to hear the views of teachers at first hand. Although I have been encouraged by the enthusiastic response to the national curriculum and assessments, does my hon. Friend agree that there must be some foundation to the concern felt by many teachers about the increasing amount of administrative work imposed on them by local authorities and by the Government? That is especially the case in primary schools, where teachers do not have free periods for planning. Will my hon. Friend assure me that she is listening carefully to those anxieties and that it will not be a question of saying, "I hear what you say", and then doing nothing?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Like her, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited a number of primary schools and made similar observations. We appreciate the extremely hard work that primary school teachers have put into introducing the national curriculum, especially in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Our major concern is that some primary school teachers have taken their responsibilities so seriously that they are trying to introduce assessments without the proper guidance that will be brought forward in the autumn. I hope that some of them will wait for that advice rather than trying to construct their own assessments in an effort to do their best.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister will no doubt recall that when the Education Reform Bill was in Standing Committee there was a great deal of discussion about the amount of non-teaching time needed fully to implement the national curriculum. At the time a figure of 10 per cent. was talked about. Given that since then we have had the Elton report on discipline, which also imposes work and duties on teachers, will she confirm that primary school teachers will have at least 10 per cent. non-teaching time to carry out all the essential functions associated with the national curriculum and the Elton report on discipline?

Mrs. Rumbold: Primary school teachers are delivering and introducing the national curriculum and, rightly, taking time for in-service training to ensure that they deliver the national curriculum correctly. I am sure that they will also find time to do other work within the 1,265 hours that they have under their contracts.

Mr. Burt: Will my hon. Friend note the anxieties of Conservative Members who are sympathetic to the extra work and burdens placed on all teachers? Is she aware of our anxiety at the decision by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers to call for a one-day strike? Will she explain that the best way for teachers to put their case over to the Government is not by strike action but by building on the sympathy and understanding of the general public which they are putting at risk?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were deeply disappointed by the decision of the NAS/UWT to take action. That decision was taken by a small percentage—about a third—of the members of the union. We believe that the decision will deprive children of necessary education deeply disappoint their parents. It will not fulfil the expectations of the general public, which over the past three years have been improving greatly. A respect for teachers and their work has been building up which the action will destroy at a stroke.

Ms. Armstrong: When answering my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), the Minister failed to mention that section of Her Majesty's inspectors' report which says that, by some route or other, 10 per cent. of non-contract time must be allowed for each teacher for administration. Is she aware that the report says that otherwise it will be impossible for primary schools, particularly small ones, to implement the national curriculum, testing and reporting of testing?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am well aware of the amount of time that primary school teachers spend with their children. They have always spent most of the school day with their children. But that does not comprise the full 1,265 hours to which they are committed to work under their contracts. They have non-contract time outside teaching time for in-service training and other duties, and teachers undertake those duties willingly.

Mr. Favell: On the national curriculum, does my hon. Friend believe that more and more people from all backgrounds will in later life buy personal pensions, buy their own homes and be share owners? Is she satisfied that schools are equipping people for what, after all, will be a fairly complicated financial life?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. We hope that one of the most important common themes running through the teaching of the national curriculum will be economic awareness of matters that will be a feature of everyone's life in the future.

School Buildings

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to ensure that schools are in good repair, prior to the enactment of local management of schools.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): It is the responsibility of local education authorities to carry out necessary repairs to county and voluntary controlled schools. Governors of voluntary-aided schools receive grant aid from the Department for necessary external repairs.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Under-Secretary aware that next financial year the capital allocation from his Department for Gateshead city technology college is three times that for all 145 schools in Sunderland put together? How can that be justified when many of the schools in my constituency and elsewhere are falling to pieces?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that officials from my Department recently had a meeting with officers of Sunderland local education authority. We are anxious to look as helpfully as we can at the capital needs of Gateshead. The capital guidelines issued to authorities are based on objective criteria and standards that are well understood by the authorities. If the bid from Sunderland failed to match our national priorities it is the responsibility of the authority. We are anxious, however, to look with the authority at its needs.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to welcome the establishment of a city technology college in his area which will provide a magnificent educational opportunity for children in Sunderland. It is sad that such a negative, grudging attitude should be shown to the generosity of the sponsors and the willingness of the Government to establish the highest standards of educational provision for all children in his area.

Mr. Sayeed: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently visited St. George's school in my constituency, which is operating the full local management of schools system and which is extremely happy with it? Is my hon. Friend aware that that school now gets its repairs done speedily by outside contractors which cuts down the costs to the school and that, next year, it will be able to carry over £70,000 of its budget? Will the Minister tell my right hon. Friend how pleased that school and other schools are with the 100 per cent. carry-over rules now permitted by the Department?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The flexibility that LMS will allow head teachers and the chairmen of governors to enable them to get work done is enormously welcome. Those people have welcomed LMS because it offers them an enhanced opportunity for responsibility and to get things done at a practical level. Many head teachers have told me how difficult it has been to have every decision that they needed to take about repairs and maintenance of their schools second-guessed by their authorities. They are pleased to have the opportunity for flexible, rapid response.

Mr. Fatchett: Is not it clear that LMS will cause problems in relation not just to school buildings and repairs, but teacher jobs? What action will the Department take to protect the job of Mrs. Barbara Symes—a constituent of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—a mathematics teacher who is threatened with redundancy from Redlands first school? What educational justification can there be for making redundant an experienced and senior maths teacher? Is not that


educational vandalism and a demonstration that all that we have said about LMS and the security of teachers' jobs is correct?

Mr. Howarth: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise the fair principle that every child of a given age should attract an equal unit of resource. As teaching costs are far the largest component of educational spending, it follows that the formula for a school's budget must reflect the average cost of employing a teacher. We have, of course, said that we are prepared to look sympathetically at the problems of schools facing difficulties in the transition from actual to average salaries. Three quarters of schools will gain from the flexibility that we have allowed for small schools. Larger schools that have the prospect of a reduction in their budgets of more than 1 per cent. during the four-year transitional period will be considered sympathetically and may have the opportunity of a longer transitional period.
It is for the governors of the school mentioned to think carefully about what they are doing. I am certain that the authority will want to help it to analyse the problem to see whether it is necessary to make Mrs. Symes redundant.

Sir Cyril Smith: Is the Minister aware that a major problem in education is not the method of funding, but the amount of money available after the method has been determined? Is he aware that many schools are in a state of disrepair and that it is estimated that £3 billion is needed to bring schools up to standard? Will he assure the House that, by September 1991, regulations on the standard of school buildings which were suggested in 1981 will be capable of being enforced?

Mr. Howarth: Between 1976 and 1979, when the hon. Gentleman and his party supported the Labour Government, there was a 50 per cent. cut in capital spending on school buildings. Since then, under this Government, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the amount spent per pupil on school buildings. Nationally, there has been a 42 per cent. increase in the amount spent per pupil in our schools. The amount of resources that we can make available for education depends on the progress of the economy. With the successful development of the economy under this Government, increased resources are going into education.

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware of the circumstances in West Sussex, where terrible damage was inflicted on temporary hutted classrooms during the recent storms? Will my hon. Friend pay close attention to those difficulties to see whether financial assistance can be given to those schools?

Mr. Howarth: We were concerned to do what we could as quickly as possible to help schools that suffered serious damage in the storms earlier this year. The House was shocked and distressed at the deaths and injuries to children. Fortunately, the standing instructions that local education authorities have in force enabled schools, with the good sense and resourcefulness of head teachers and other teachers, to minimise the risk to people. We immediately made it clear that money to help would be available under the emergency Bellwin rules. Since then, my Department has written to all authorities asking them to review their procedures that they undertook to ensure that minimum damage occurs as a consequence of the storms.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the guidelines for approval of grant-maintained status for schools.

Mr. MacGregor: In considering proposals for grant-maintained status, steps are taken to ensure that I have all the necessary information to enable me to decide the proposals on their merits.

Mr. Lofthouse: The Secretary of State will be aware that of the 65 schools that voted to opt out, 60 per cent. had been involved in the reorganisation or closure programme. Does not that show that the reorganisation programme is being used to assist the opt-out policy? Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), how many High Court cases will he lose before he scraps the disastrous opt-out policy?

Mr. MacGregor: I totally reject the idea that this is a disastrous policy, as do all parents who will benefit from it. Among the grant-maintained schools on which we have information, applications for next September seem to be up by 40 per cent. on this year. That shows what parents want, and that is what the hon. Gentleman wants to deprive them of. I hope that it will be noted that he does not believe in parental choice. I have already rejected applications from 11 schools that did not satisfy me about their viability. All were in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described—subject to closure by their local education authorities at the time of the parental ballots or just afterwards.
In some cases, parents decided not to pursue grant-maintained status. They had obviously looked at the matter in the round.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all school governors are aware of the guidelines on grant-maintained schools and the advantages that such schools afford local schools, local children and future education?

Mr. MacGregor: In the past week we have prepared a leaflet that is available to all schools and parents explaining what grant-maintained schools are about, the process of applying to become a grant-maintained school and so on. As my hon. Friend will know, a charitable body, Choice in Education, exists to show schools the benefits of grant-maintained status. What will make the case for grant-maintained schools above all will be the enthusiasm and morale of the teaching staff, the tremendous support of the governors and the fact that parents want to send their children to them.

Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State recall making clear and categorical promises that grant-maintained schools would be treated in the same way as local authority schools when it came to funding? In view of those promises, will he explain why the so-called charity, Choice in Education, which is no more than a Conservative front organisation run by a Conservative councillor, Andrew Turner, has been writing to schools considering opting out as follows:
The possibility of better funding is by far the most important factor leading to a decision to opt out … the


budgets set for Grant-Maintained schools indicate first year funding levels of between 15 per cent. and 26 per cent. higher than the historic level"?
If the policy is so popular, why is it necessary for the Secretary of State and a front organisation to resort to bare-faced bribery?

Mr. MacGregor: Current funding is entirely on all fours with the maintained sector. The hon. Gentleman has ignored the fact that grant-maintained schools can have that proportion of funding for the services that are provided centrally, normally by local education authorities. That funding is made available on a strictly comparable basis for grant-maintained schools. That has meant that we have made provision for services which were previously provided centrally—on average about 15 per cent. of the direct costs of the schools. That puts the funding on all fours with the maintained sector. The great benefit to the grant-maintained school is that priorities are decided on the expenditure itself. That is being proved already to be of benefit to children.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that teachers are queuing to apply for every job that is available in grant-maintained schools which is a sign of the great success of those schools? Does he agree that those teachers are unlikely to strike on 4 April and damage children's education? Will he do all that he can to dissuade all teachers from striking on 4 April? That act would only damage the education of children and further damage the teaching profession.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. I have visited a number of grant-maintained schools and met many teachers from them. I know that the morale, enthusiasm, dedication and commitment of those teachers is high. I am sure that the great majority of teachers throughout the country share that dedication and commitment. That is why I deplore the attitude of a small minority of teachers, reflected in the NAS-UWT decision to strike for a day. As my hon. Friend says, that is damaging to children and, in the eyes of the public, to the teaching profession as a whole. That is why I am grateful to the other teaching unions for taking a responsible attitude on these matters and saying that such action serves no useful purpose. It merely diminishes the teaching profession.

Research

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the dual support system for research in universities and polytechnics.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Research is sponsored by research councils in universities and polytechnics by grants from the councils. Under the dual support system the universities also receive block funding for research from the UFC.
As my right hon. Friend announced on 9 January, the Department has issued a consultative paper proposing changes in the method of supporting such research. The paper proposes new arrangements which would clarify the boundary between what costs are met from research council grants and what costs are met by higher education institutions. The consultations are continuing.

Mr. Worthington: Is not this a device to transfer £70 million to the research councils and further centralise research and diminish the authority of the universities? Instead of moving the deckchairs, and changing the administrative arrangements, should not we be increasing the amount of research that is undertaken?

Mr. Jackson: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not noticed the substantial increase in the science budget over the past 10 years, and the past two years especially. The proposals, which follow a recommendation of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, are still being consulted upon, so I cannot confirm the figure that the hon. Gentleman has given. There is a widespread view that it is desirable to make the transfer to achieve greater clarity in the arrangements and the costs of funding research, and to enable research to be better managed by the research councils and within the higher education institutions.

Mr. Latham: Why do we need a dual system at all? If an organisation has a professor and awards degrees, why should it not call itself a university? Is not it about time that polytechnics were allowed to do that?

Mr. Jackson: I think that my hon. Friend is confusing dual systems. The dual system of research, which is the subject of the question, is a principle to which Government adhere. We believe that it achieves a desirable balance between the ability of research councils to manage the deployment of research funds on a national basis and the ability of institutions and people who work in them to initiate proposals for research and to conduct research in a free and autonomous manner. We believe that that dual system still has many advantages but that it is desirable to clarify the boundaries between the two different funding systems. That is the subject of our proposal.

Dr. Bray: If the research funding at the disposal of universities and polytechnics falls, are not there bound to be greater instability and frictional losses in the research activity of particular institutions because there will not be the continuity of research council funding?

Mr. Jackson: As usual, the hon. Gentleman raises a point of substance which will have to be taken into account in the consultations on these matters. Balances have to be struck, but we believe that there are advantages in clarifying the boundaries in this fashion, as the advisory board recommended. One of the advantages, incidentally, will be to ensure that research funding goes increasingly to those institutions—and to the individuals in them—capable of doing the best work.

Mr. Rhodes James: Does the Minister share my enthusiasm for the votes in the House of Lords yesterday on the Education (Student Loans) Bill?

Mr. Jackson: I am delighted to note my hon. Friend's enthusiasm. The Government are still considering their position in relation to those amendments and no doubt my hon. Friend will be informed in due course of any conclusions that the Government have reached.

Standard Spending Assessments

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he adopted for determining expenditure on secondary education within the standard spending assessment of each local education authority.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what basis the 1990–91 standard spending assessments for education were calculated.

Mrs. Rumbold: The education component of the standard spending assessment is distributed among authorities principally on the basis of the number of pupils and students in each block of the assessment. The distribution also involves certain other factors that take account of the different circumstances of different authorities. In the case of secondary education, the relevant group comprises pupils aged 11 to 15 in each authority. Full details can be found in the revenue support grant distribution report.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the SSA exercise is unrealistic in any case? Is she aware that the London borough of Newham has had to cut expenditure viciously to approach its SSA figure but has nevertheless had to spend £7 million in what the Secretary of State would call excessive expenditure? Is she aware that Norfolk education committee has also had to spend £7 million of what the right hon. Gentleman would call excessive expenditure? Is not it time that the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and the hon. Member for Newham, South got together and took the advice of the respective friends, local parents and teachers urging them to protest against the Secretary of State's uninformed, damaging and irresponsible proposals?

Mrs. Rumbold: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has much to complain about. As it happens, Newham benefits from the increased weightings for additional educational needs and from the area cost adjustment in the revised methodology for the educational element of SSAs. In other words, his authority is doing rather well out of the new system compared with the old.

Mr. Michie: Given the Minister's unsatisfactory reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State have completely ignored representations from Sheffield city council and, indeed, many Tory-controlled authorities about the methods used to work out the standard spending assessments, should not the Secretary of State now have the courage to stand up for the children of Britain and argue with his colleagues that they ought to scrap the poll tax?

Mrs. Rumbold: Sheffield has been a significant overspender on education in the past and its expenditure per pupil has been considerably larger than most. None the less, its standard spending assessment will allow £150 million for spending on education, which should be perfectly adequate.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the present system of putting money into schools—through local government finance—is not working well, particularly in the case of capital expenditure? Does she

accept that, in the longer term, we shall have to consider direct funding for education from the Exchequer, while retaining local control?

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that my hon. Friend knows already that the Government have no plans for such a move. The money currently spent through the local education authorities, with the support of the Government and of the community charge payers, would have to come from somewhere. Subtracting that money would not leave community charge payers in a better position.

Mr. Robert Banks: My hon. Friend will be aware that many secondary school buildings constructed in the 1960s have flat roofs, which are a pain in the neck because they leak constantly. Will she examine the criteria to see what can be done to provide special financial assistance to enable that design fault to be corrected?

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I share the view that the flat roofs of buildings constructed in the 1960s have proved very unsatisfactory. In saying that, I refer not just to education buildings but to buildings throughout the public sector. When we consider next year's assessment for capital expenditure, that matter will be taken into account.

Mr. Straw: Why have Ministers set education spending levels so low that if authorities were to meet them thousands of teachers across the country would have to be sacked? Why are Ministers getting ready to poll tax cap authorities spending well under £2,800 per secondary pupil while they are ready to subsidise children at private schools, such as the one to which the Secretary of State sends his child, which charge more than £4,000 per pupil? Why do we have to put up with that double standard, whereby Ministers are ready to put at risk and undermine the education of other people's children in a way in which they would never put at risk the education of their own children?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman has totally failed to understand that the new standard spending assessments do not take into account exactly the same factors as the old grant-related expenditure assessments. That is perhaps not surprising as it is quite a difficult sum. It is quite wrong, and totally misleading, to say that the spending for 1989–90 can in any way be compared with the spending for next year. For example, the debt charges are not taken into account in the standard spending assessments, whereas they are taken into account in the grant-related expenditure.
There has not, as yet, been any suggestion that there will be charge capping.

Teachers' Pay

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to establish a new negotiating body for teachers' pay.

Mr. MacGregor: I held a series of constructive meetings with the teacher unions and employers towards the end of last year. I am considering carefully the points put to me and will make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so. The immediate priority is to complete the consultation process on the 1990–91 pay settlement.

Mr. Greenway: Teachers are understandably anxious that there should be a new pay body, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of pay cannot be viewed in isolation from the career structure of the teaching profession, the effect of the local management initiative, and the overriding objective of raising the morale of teachers? Does he think that the threat of fresh industrial action will have precisely the opposite effect and will serve only to undermine the good will that has carefully been re-established in our schools?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that these issues relate not just to pay as such but to career structures and to the need for greater local flexibility to enable local school management to operate. My hon. Friend will have noticed that in this year's pay settlement the interim advisory committee carried out the remit that I had given it and produced far-reaching recommendations to deal both with career structure and with local flexibility. As to industrial action, I can only repeat what I said earlier—I do not believe that such action does anything to enhance teachers' standing in the public mind. The vast majority of dedicated teachers want to get on with the job and deserve respect. I regret the fact that the action of the few undermines that hard and dedicated work.

Mr. Flannery: Five years after the Government destroyed the teachers unions' democratic negotiating rights and were condemned for doing so by international law and by the United Nations Organisation, through the International Labour Organisation, are we to have a negotiating body dictated to us which cannot negotiate, or one with teacher representatives democratically elected to negotiate?

Mr. MacGregor: As I have explained on a number of occasions, trying to find the right machinery for determining teachers' pay in the future is what the discussions are all about. There are wide differences of view among the interested parties and the task is to find the best way ahead. Some teacher unions have rather welcomed the outcome of the work that the interim advisory committee has been doing in recent years and have greatly welcomed the fact that through its recommendations and our acceptance of them a much better career structure has been produced.

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he has given to findings of the Interim Advisory Committee on Teachers' Pay which were not made in its formal recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with teachers in his constituency about the report. I have considered carefully all the points that the interim advisory committee has made. It has produced an excellent report. I am completing the required consultation on the report and will make an announcement in due course when consideration of the responses has been completed.

Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely hopeful answer on the IAC report, but what message does he have this afternoon for the 100 or so teachers in my constituency of Fylde on the subject of teacher morale? Which parts of the IAC report will he act on to help address those problems?

Mr. MacGregor: The IAC report is fundamentally about pay. I have already said that, subject to the consultation process that I am going through at the moment, I am minded to accept the IAC recommendations in full. The committee has said that its recommendations are far reaching, and I believe that to be right. They will produce a career structure which rewards greater responsibilities and which rewards more those who get to the top of their profession. The pay of heads and deputies will increase by about 10·4 per cent. on average and there will be flexibility to deal with local shortages and to reward classroom skills. That is all helpful and, in so far as low morale is about pay, the committee's report takes us a good way forward.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not want to undermine some of the IAC's recommendations, but will the Secretary of State accept that the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has been driven to take strike action, which I do not endorse, by a much larger majority of its members than the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues had as a percentage of the electorate at the last election, because they feel frustrated that they cannot negotiate their pay and conditions? Will the Secretary of State announce the end of the IAC and the beginning of negotiating rights for teachers so that they can negotiate a better deal?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already given my view on the decision to hold a one-day strike and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman takes the same view. Such a strike serves no useful purpose, particularly as I am in the process of consultation on the IAC report, about which I met the NAS/UWT a week or so ago, and on the long-term negotiating machinery, about which I have also seen representatives. It is pointless to have a strike while those discussions are going on. Strikes on such issues are not right in any case for a noble profession and I hope that even now the union will think again.

Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House should condemn those who are trying to get teachers to go on strike over pay? At a time when strikes in industry are increasingly rare, is not it a crying shame that the teaching profession—of which I used to be a member and which is composed of educated people—should be unable to resolve such issues by sitting down round a table and discussing them?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. What is more, I believe that that is what the vast majority of teachers think.

Higher Education

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the level of achievement of 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education.

Mr. Jackson: The Government have achieved a substantial increase in full-time participation in post-compulsory education. For 16-year-olds, it has increased by 25 per cent.—from 40 to 50 per cent.—between 1979 and today, and for 16 and 17-year-olds taken together it has increased from 34 to 42 per cent. These figures do not


include youth training scheme trainees who attend college full time. We also have improvements in hand for the curriculum and qualifications for this age group.

Mr. Skinner: Why cannot all 16 to 19-year-olds have the same freedom of choice as those who come from wealthy families? Is not it true that a lot of young people who leave school at 16 have the choice of the YTS swindle or cardboard city? If the Government have enough money to provide for city technology colleges and for tax relief for public schools, why can we not have equal financial allowances for those working class kids who volunteer to stay on at school?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a factual misapprehension. It is perfectly possible for 16-year-olds to stay on at school or go to college full-time if they choose.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March 1990.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that the last remaining obstacle to early British entry into the exchange rate mechanism is the present temporary high rate of inflation?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is not quite right. In view of the statement made in Madrid, and repeated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend will know that it is absolutely vital that we have free movement of capital throughout the Community. That condition has not yet been satisfied and is one factor. We must get our own rate of inflation down and we must have proper competition throughout the Community.

Mr. Kinnock: Is it not evident from that reply that the Prime Minister has absolutely no serious intention of joining the exchange rate mechanism for as long as she survives?

The Prime Minister: No, not in the least—I stand by the statement that we made in Madrid. I was not able to join the EMS during my first decade—I hope to do so during my second.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. Lady not agree with the view expressed by the former Chancellor last night that Britain's non-membership of the EMS is an exposed flank? As a result is it not clear that last night she was savaged by a live scapegoat?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor would be the first to agree about the need to get inflation down. That is the top priority.

Mr. Kinnock: So will the Prime Minister tell us whether she believes that, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the current pace is "too leisurely"?

The Prime Minister: I reaffirm what I said in Madrid and what I have said in my two previous answers. We are committed to joining the exchange rate mechanism and we shall do so when the Madrid conditions are fulfilled. They are not fulfilled yet.

Mr. Gorst: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the end of last week she said that she had received a message from the electors of Mid-Staffordshire? In her characteristically forthright fashion, will she send a message back to them to the effect that, local difficulties apart, the Government have a lot of important business to transact in the next few months and that when that business has been dispatched they will certainly wish to dispatch the temporary representative?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend has got it absolutely right. We hope and expect to win back that constituency in the general election, as we have won back seats from previous by-elections.

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Michie: What message of hope has the Prime Minister for the hard-pressed and beleaguered Scottish fishing industry? Will she allow that vital indigenous industry to go to the wall as so many others have?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is well aware that part of the fishing grounds have been significantly overfished. There is a need to conserve the fish. Although in recent months the fishermen have not been able to land the same weight as previously, they have been getting much better prices. We are in close touch with the Commission and are carefully watching the effect of East German entry on the common fisheries policy. We will ensure that East Germany does not take the quota that we regard as ours.

Mr. Haselhurst: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the unequivocal assurance given by the Government in the White Paper, "Airports Policy", in 1985—that there would not be a second runway at Stansted—is as unequivocal now as it was then?

The Prime Minister: I have no reason to think that there has been any change whatsoever.

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross: Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland that the disastrous


mishandling of the poll tax issue in the Budget was a victory for him over her—or, in his words, that on this issue she fell into line with his better judgment?

The Prime Minister: No, that showed how generous are the resources available to Scotland. The £9,500 million enabled my right hon. and learned Friend easily to take £4 million to help the people who have been paying community charge for longer than those in England.

Mr. Colvin: May I ask the Prime Minister to imagine that the community charge had been in operation for the past 100 years? If that were so, what does my right hon. Friend think that householders would be saying to one another if the Government were about to introduce a system of household domestic rates?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has made a clever point. My imagination does not go back 100 years, but the essential point that my hon. Friend makes is that the rates were the most unfair and unpopular tax of all, and they are being replaced by a fairer tax that will in time prove much better.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Last night the former Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) both refused to support the Prime Minister in the Lobby in a Division on the poll tax—despite the fact that only hours previously the right hon. Member for Henley had been driven into a loyalty oath in favour of the Prime Minister. What does she think of those two right hon. Gentlemen now? Does she believe that the loyalty oath was hollow? Is this the first time that a Chancellor has expressed a reservation on the poll tax?

The Prime Minister: I must ask my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to have a quiet word with them and see what that will do.

Mr. Gale: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that because of her special relationship with Mr. Gorbachev she is better placed than any other world leader to send a clear message to the Soviet Union that armed intervention in Lithuania is no more acceptable today than it was in Czechoslovakia and Hungary? Will she please do so?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware of my previous replies. The people of Lithuania have made clear their wish to determine their own future. Furthermore, we have never recognised the annexation of Lithuania by the Soviet Union as legal, although it was recognised in fact in the Helsinki accords. Undoubtedly this is a very difficult situation, both for President Gorbachev and for the people of Lithuania. I believe that it calls for great restraint on both sides. Force is not an appropriate way to settle the position. I hope that it will be settled by restraint on both sides and by their discussing it so that they come to a satisfactory conclusion. That view was also taken by the 12 Foreign Secretaries of the Community.

Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Watson: The Prime Minister will be aware of the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland at the weekend to the effect that he had been involved in politics prior to her becoming leader of her party and that he would continue to be so involved when she was no longer the leader of her party. Does not the Prime Minister think it more likely that the general election will sound the death knell of both simultaneously?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is a young and able man. I am sure that he will still be here at this Dispatch Box in a Conservative Government long after I am not.

Mr. Hind: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend is aware that high-spending councils such as Lancashire have levied a 17·5 per cent. increase in their expenditure this year. Does she agree that they are playing their part in increasing inflation, that they must recognise that that is their role and that they must look carefully at their finances with a view to restraining increases next year?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Lancashire and a number of other Labour authorities are accepting some of the advice given in one of the Labour documents—to set the community charge as high as they can possibly get away with. That is what they have done. It adds to inflation and it puts a heavy burden on all their local electors who will have to pay far more community charge than they ought, had those councils adhered to the Government's standard spending recommendations.

Mr Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March 1990.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: In view of the answer that the Prime Minister gave a few moments ago, will she say in what way the Lithuanian people should show restraint, given that since 1939 their country has been annexed by and forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union and that the aggression in Lithuania now is coming entirely from the Soviet Union? Does she not believe that the Government of President Landsbergis should be recognised as the Government of that country?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the situation there is very difficult indeed, that it does not help to be provocative in any way, on either side, and that the only way is for both groups of people to sit down, try to work things through by dialogue and come to a satisfactory settlement. We had hoped last night when we saw people in Lithuania and people in the red army sitting down together that they were well on the way to doing that. It does require dialogue between politicians. We support such a dialogue, and so does the whole of the European Community.

Mr. Favell: Would my right hon. Friend care to contemplate the fact that in the 1980s shops and hotels had


to put the customer first, with fewer people, factories had to produce more goods with a smaller work force and even the professions had to learn that the world did not revolve around them, but for local authorities the party has gone merrily on? Is there any earthly reason why that should be so?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the point effectively. Output has gone up in factories and offices, with fewer people, and by that means we have achieved a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, the numbers employed by local authorities have continued to rise, and we have reason to ask whether they could achieve greater administration with fewer people, which would bring down the community charge.

Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Hoey: Does the Prime Minister agree with her supporter, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who in a recent radio interview called for the police to sweep the homeless off the streets and close the cardboard cities? Where does she think he might like them to be swept to?

The Prime Minister: There are about 21,000 hostel places available in the London area, many more than there used to be, of which about 3,000 are available at short notice. They are not always filled and it would be better if people spent the night in the beds in those hostels than on the streets of London.
The hon. Lady will be aware that £250 million funding was recently announced to help the homeless, and recently £148 million of that—a considerable sum—was made available for London and the south-east, some to local authorities and some to housing associations, to help resolve the problem.

Training Credits

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about training credits for young people.
The initiative that I am announcing today marks an important new departure in our policies for training young people. Its aim is to excite young people about the benefits of continuing in training and further education after they have left school and to raise the amount and quality of training provided by employers. The initiative has the potential to revolutionise attitudes to training in this country. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining for the statement please leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are well aware that statements of this kind are a fiasco and are made for a specific purpose but the fiasco is contributed to when we cannot hear what is being said.

Mr. Speaker: I have just asked hon. Members who are not staying for the statement to leave quietly. Mr. Howard.

Mr. Howard: I was—

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point that was put to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), may I seek your protection as a Back Bencher? We have witnessed, certainly since 1987, the way in which the Government of the day have manipulated the business of the House in the interest of the Executive against that of the legislature. You are in regular contact with the usual channels and the Leader of the House. Do you agree that it would be appropriate to let the Leader of the House know that this legislature will not tolerate for much longer the manipulation of the business of the House by a Government who are—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that whether or not a statement should be made is not a matter for me but is arranged through the usual channels, of which I am not part. Mr. Howard.

Mr. Howard: If we are to continue effectively in the world economy of the 1990s, we need a skilled work force that is second to none—

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it a point of order that I can answer? I hope that the hon. Gentleman's point is not questioning whether or not the statement should be made.

Mr. McCartney: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the new hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire is as much interested in the subject of the training of her young constituents as is any other hon. Member of the House? Are you further aware that she is deliberately being kept out of the Chamber—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Howard: If we are to compete effectively in the world economy of the 1990s—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is getting ridiculous.

Mr. Faulds: Mr. Speaker, is this not yet another outcome of the introduction of the television cameras? The whole purpose of the delay of the introduction of the new hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire is so that it does not catch prime television time. The crowd on the Government Benches are manipulating things—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a fair bet that the introduction of the hon. Lady will catch the television cameras.

Mr. Howard: Surely there can be few things more important for the future of our country than the training of our young people.
If we are to compete effectively in the world economy of the 1990s, we need a skilled work force who are second to none. The basis for that must be effective and high-quaity education and training for young people. We are already well on the way to achieving this. In schools, the Education Reform Act 1988, the GCSE and the technical and vocational education initiative are raising levels of attainment and preparing young people for the world of work. The new arrangements for youth training will build on the achievements of the youth training scheme and lead both to higher levels of training and to training that is more relevant to the needs of employers. We are currently establishing training and enterprise councils throughout England and Wales, and local enterprise companies in Scotland. One of their key tasks will be to mobilise local employers to offer more and better training in the skills needed by industry to young people.
We must also motivate young people themselves to understand the importance to them of quality training and to come to expect training as a normal part of employment. There has been widespread interest in training credits as a means of achieving this. The Confederation of British Industry in particular has advocated credits in its report "Towards a Skills Revolution" and has proposed pilot schemes at local level to test them out.
Training credits represent an entitlement to train to approved standards. They would be issued to young people who would be able to present their credit either to an employer who makes training available or to a specialist provider of training if the young person is unable to find employment. Young people would be given quality careers advice and guidance to help them to put their credit to best use. A monetary value would be shown on the face of the credit, and it would be open to employers and the body issuing the credit to supplement this as necessary to secure higher-cost training or other priorities.
I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and other Ministers concerned, have looked closely at the range of proposals for training credits. We agree that they are potentially an exciting means of motivating young people to train.
Credits are as yet untested. We have therefore decided to invite training and enterprise councils and local


enterprise companies in Scotland to run pilot credit schemes to come into operation from April 1991. To this end, I am today issuing a prospectus inviting them, in co-operation with local education authorities, to submit bids for my approval. The aim is to select 10 such schemes to operate from April next year in areas covering up to 10 per cent. of the national total of 16 and 17-year-olds leaving full-time education—that is, some 45,000 young people a year. Every pilot will provide young people with an entitlement to train. Under some pilots, the entitlement will be for all young people leaving full-time education. Others may take a more selective approach in focusing, for example, on improving training for particular occupations or skill levels, in small firms, or through inner-city compacts or other business-education partnerships.
In all cases, the training and enterprise councils will need to work closely with local education authorities, further education colleges and the careers service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, will ensure that the authorities are properly involved. The training and enterprise councils will be expected to ensure that credits are used only for training that is relevant to the needs of employers and which meets approved standards. Their schemes will need to lead to more young people undertaking training and to the attainment of higher skill levels. There will be rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of the schemes.
The councils will also have to make sure that all young people who are unable to find jobs will, as now, be guaranteed a suitable training place and that there is appropriate provision for young people who are disabled or who have other special training needs.
Overall funding for these pilot schemes will come in large part from planned provision for youth training. There will also be a contribution from the relevant element of local education authority provision for 16 to 18-year-olds undertaking part-time training and education. From their existing expenditure plans, the Government are making available a further £12 million in 1991–92, rising to £25 million in the following year. This will bring the total estimated resources available to the training and enterprise councils running pilot credit schemes to £115 million by 1992–93.
This is the first important step in an exciting new direction. Its purpose is to make a major impact on the motivation of young people to train after they have left school and so to increase the skills and productivity of our young work force. I am sure that these proposals will be widely welcomed. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: I must tell the Secretary of State that I am sure that the Government's appalling training record played a major part in their crushing defeat in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election last week. Surely the key question today is whether he will recognise that we have a massive and widening training gap with our competitor countries; that we are behind in every sector, whether manufacturing or services, and that we must know whether this initiative will amount to a genuine entitlement by young people to high-quality training backed up by the public sector support and cash necessary to make it a reality.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore confirm that, while the training gap in Britain is so big that half our work force are receiving no in-work training and our young people are denied training to the standards of our competitors, all that he has made available is £12 million, not this year but next, and £25 million thereafter? Is this new money or is it, as we fear, simply taken from elsewhere in the employment budget? Even if it is new money, can the Secretary of State tell us, as he has repeatedly refused to say over the last few days, whether he is intending to cut £150 million from the training budget next year, £120 million the year after and £60 million the year after—£300 million off the youth training budget over three years? Does that still stand?
Is it the case—just to forestall the excuse that this is caused by the declining numbers of young people—that, as we have calculated today, the cost of training per trainee per week over the next three years is to be cut from £50 to under £30? Does that still apply to this new training credit scheme and, if it does, how will he answer the demands by the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress that we use any money saved by a training credit scheme to upgrade the standards and qualifications of our young people, since we languish far behind our competitors in the quality as well as the quantity of training?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman provide, as the CBI and the TUC ask, for each young person to be provided with his or her own action plan record of achievement to plan for the future? Will he undertake, as those bodies say is a vital component of any such scheme, to boost the advice and counselling services necessary for young people to make a reality of their choice in the training market?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is proposing to cut careers advisory service spending next year and, perhaps as important as anything, whether the credit will meet the full cost of a young person's training? Is it, in other words, a proper entitlement or will it be in strict terms a cash-limited voucher which trainees may be obliged to top up from their own resources? We need answers to those questions.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that these pilot schemes will start in 1991 and run until 1993. It will therefore be the mid-1990s before any full-blown training scheme can take off. When we examine the skills crisis that Britain faces, when, after 11 years of his Government, the Secretary of State is still talking about pilot schemes, when we confront the magnitude of our failure and the mountain that we have to climb, does he really believe that his announcement measures up to the scale of the revolution in skills that we say Britain needs?

Mr. Howard: That must rank as one of the most churlish receptions to an imaginative new training scheme that the House has heard. Of course I can confirm that the scheme will provide a genuine entitlement to high-quality training. That is what it is all about. To answer the question that I think the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said was the most important of those that he asked, I can confirm that there will be no question of the person receiving the training being asked to top it up from his or her own resources.
The value of the training will in the first instance be provided on the face of the credit. It will be topped up either by the training and enterprise council or by the


employer, or by both. The funds to achieve that will be made available. I indicated clearly in my statement that the additional resources will be made available to ensure that these schemes deliver their objectives and are a great success.
The hon. Gentleman complained, among other things, that the additional money would not be made available until next year. That is because the scheme cannot start until next year. It is typical of the level of criticisms which we get from the hon. Gentleman that he should make such a point. To answer another of his questions, it is true that we recognise the importance of the careers advisory service, and we will be discussing with it how it can best play its part in ensuring that young people make the best use of the credits that will be made available to them.
The hon. Gentleman returned again to the criticism that he made yesterday about resources. I tried to explain to him yesterday that the contribution made by employers to the training of young people has increased six times in the last four years and that we expect it to increase again. His response to that yesterday was that he would use sanctions against employers who did not do what he wanted them to do, and that he would deal with them. It says volumes for the innermost thinking of the hon. Gentleman and his party that they use the same language about British employers as they use about the foreign regime which they most deeply detest.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that this is a Back Benchers' day?

Mr. Dave Nellist: These are statements.

Mr. Speaker: I know. But I am frequently asked if statements may be made; I am seldom asked if a statement may not be made. As I was saying, this is a Back Benchers' day and there should be plenty of opportunity on the Adjournment motion or on the Consolidated Fund Bill to outline a case. Therefore I ask hon. Members to put single questions to the Secretary of State so that we may get on more rapidly.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my contempt for those on the Opposition Front Bench who, having clamoured for pilot studies in the Health Service, then come here to excoriate him for introducing an imaginative scheme as an experiment? Does he agree that colleges throughout the country are already responding to the possibility of being able to compete in the training market with enthusiasm and imagination?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The only place where enthusiasm for this initiative is lacking is on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. James Wallace: Given the training gap, it would be churlish not to welcome a scheme that will do something about it, albeit we wish to see other schemes too. Can the Secretary of State say what provision there will be for the maintenance of young people who are in receipt of training credits?

Mr. Howard: Those who are not in employment will have exactly the same entitlement as exists at the moment under the youth training scheme. I should emphasise that the guarantee that is currently available under youth training will continue and that all young people who cannot find jobs will continue to be guaranteed a training place. For young people in employment, obviously their income will be a matter of negotiation between them and their employers.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this will be seen by young people and employers alike as an incredibly valuable tool for the new training and enterprise councils? Can he confirm that the development of the TECs, which are so essential to his initiative, is running ahead of schedule? Does he agree that it behoves young people to recognise where confidence is placed in them—that is, that they should stay with a Conservative Government who have their best interests in mind, in view of the coyness with which the Opposition state their position on the future of training and enterprise councils?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the proposals. He is absolutely right. Training and enterprise councils are running two years ahead of schedule and 66 are now receiving development funding. They are proceeding with the development of training that is much more responsive to the needs of local circumstances. That in itself represents the most exciting training initiative that we have ever seen in this country.

Mr. Ron Leighton: In principle, the Secretary of State has the germ of a good idea which could empower people to have a right to training. However, does he agree that the scheme might wither in the hands of the Government if they underfund it? Will it be a further excuse to make further cuts in the training budget? The youth training scheme currently costs the Exchequer £50 per week per place. By 1992, that is scheduled to drop to £33 per week per place. Providing £50 per week amounts to a total of £2,500 per year. The Secretary of State has been to Germany and knows that Germany's apprenticeship places cost between £6,000 and £9,000 each. How much will the credits be worth? I have heard people talk in terms of £1,000, which is about £20 a week. We will not get much quality training for that.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the payments are also made to children who stay on in school, because that is equally important? Will he ensure that employers give day release? Does he appreciate that, while welcoming the principle, the Select Committee on Employment will want to monitor its practice closely?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his welcome for the scheme. I also welcome the fact that he has said that the Select Committee will monitor the operation of the scheme. We shall all need to do that. I am confident that it will succeed. I am confident that far from withering in the Government's hands, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the scheme will flower and that we shall all regard it in a welcoming spirit when we have seen the extent to which it delivers results.
On the point about resources, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and to what I said in the


Budget debate yesterday. Employers' contributions for training are improving fast, and we expect them to continue to improve. One objective of the scheme is to encourage employers to contribute more to the cost of the training that we need.

Mr. David Madel: Once the schemes are under way, they will be very helpful to young people, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important that we continue to expand the technical and vocational education initiative courses in schools? To that end, may we have an assurance that the Government will ensure that the equipment for TVEI courses is modern and in good working condition, which will require finance?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend—TVEI is one of the Government's greatest successes. We intend that it should grow and increase and continue to play an important part in strengthening the relationships between schools and the world of work. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Secretary of State has said that he will implement the scheme with the assistance of three Cabinet colleagues, representing England, Scotland and Wales. Why has the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland been omitted?

Mr. Howard: There are no present plans to extend the scheme to Northern Ireland, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's observations.

Sir Philip Goodhart: While appreciating that young people must be given priority in this imaginative scheme, may I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the recent recommendations of the Select Committee on Employment, that training credits should be extended to older workers who may be contemplating a change of career?

Mr. Howard: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend who, in a pamphlet written some time ago, of which he was the co-author, pioneered an idea that is not very different from that which I have announced today. I have listened carefully to what he said about extending the proposal to older employees. We want to do all we can to encourage an increase in the amount of training that is provided for people of all ages in work. We shall be in a better position to evaluate whether the scheme represents the best way forward when the pilot schemes have been in operation for some time.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the Minister recognise that his statement is an admission and confession that the youth opportunities programme and YTS have been an absolute and utter failure during the past 10 years? Although the changes suggested today are a slight step in the right direction, they do not compare with some of the schemes that have been running in Europe during the past 10 years—for instance, in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland. Compared to them, we have lost out for three generations. Is it not time to give the matter more urgency and priority?

Mr. Howard: I shall pay the hon. Gentleman this tribute. His attitude is at least consistent with that of his

party, which has consistently opposed every training initiative introduced by the Government during the past 10 years. That is the limit of the extent to which his remarks were accurate. It is wrong to suggest that the youth training scheme has been anything but a considerable success. We have made rapid strides in training during the past 10 or 11 years. Of course, there is more to be done. The statement represents an important step forward.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his announcement will be a particular boost to open learning of the type conducted by the Open college? Will he tell those who would like to make constructive bids for pilot projects what criteria he will use to assess them?

Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend suggests, there will be a place for open learning within the framework of the scheme. In assessing the bids that come forward, we shall consider proposals to increase the numbers of young people receiving training, the levels of training they receive and the qualifications they are expected to obtain, and proposals made by training and enterprise councils to increase employers' contributions and to avoid deadweight—that is, to avoid duplicating training which is already provided and paid for by employers. A copy of the prospectus—indeed many copies—will be available in the Vote Office shortly after I sit down.

Mr. Frank Field: As the Government, rightly, emphasise the importance of consumer choice, may I welcome the first statement from his Department in 11 years that promotes that objective? May I also take the Secretary of State back to the points made by his hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)? Surely, if the best way to test the scheme is by pilot studies, should not he announce in the near future the extension of such a scheme to the long-term unemployed, and equally importantly, to the low paid in work?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the scheme, however qualified. I understand the force of the points he makes, but it is important that we should proceed a step at a time. The statement is an important step. We want to make sure that it is carefully prepared and evaluated. We shall decide how to take the matter forward in the light of the lessons that we learn from the pilots.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that safety on construction sites is extremely important? Will he pay tribute to the construction industry training board for the excellent work that it has done in raising standards throughout the country? Will he ensure that it is given a full role to play in this new and exciting initiative?

Mr. Howard: I am aware of my hon. Friend's close interest in these matters. I am happy to pay tribute to the role of the construction industry training board on safety. We shall have to consider its precise role in this initiative.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Secretary of State spoke of ensuring that there would be appropriate provision for the disabled and those needing special training. Will the Government give direction to LECs and TECs on that matter? Will he ensure that groups


representing the disabled are consulted and that additional funding is made available for the special needs of that group of people?

Mr. Howard: The important matters referred to by the hon. Lady will be among those taken into account when considering the bids that we receive from the TECs and LECs in Scotland. Such matters will be taken into account in that way.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As some of the Government's excellent training initiatives in the past have been treated badly because of unfair political attacks on them, will the Secretary of State say briefly what extra entitlements or rights to opportunities will be available to young people through this latest initiative? Will he give some guidance on where the £12 million will go?

Mr. Howard: The essence of the scheme is that the young person receives the credit in his hands. That represents an entitlement to training with a significant monetary sum on the face of the credit to motivate that young person and make him or her much more aware of the value that should be attached to training. We want to encourage and excite young people about the importance of receiving training—that is the essence of the proposal.
The additional resources are designed to encourage more people to receive training; obviously, the greater the numbers who receive training, the more that will cost. We want to encourage and to achieve more people in training. I have tried to explain the way in which we are confident that the pilots will achieve that end.

Mr. Dave Nellist: In the past 10 years, the successive freezing, and therefore erosion, of the allowances paid to school leavers on such schemes mean that the present generation of school leavers are £30 worse off than their counterparts were 10 years ago under the youth opportunities programme. Why and how does the proposed training scheme differ in terms of giving a decent allowance instead of the slave-labour rates of previous schemes? Given the Secretary of State's previous answer and his precise description, does he agree that training is far too important to be treated like luncheon vouchers?

Mr. Howard: When the hon. Gentleman got up to make a comparison of expenditure with that of 10 years ago, I thought that he was going to point out that the Government spend six times as much on training as did the previous Labour Government—three times more in real terms. That is the real comparison to be made between records when it comes to judging spending now with that of 10 years ago. We believe that the proposal represents a substantial step forward in exciting young people about the opportunities that are available to them on training. In due course, I hope that even the hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of the proposal and the success it has achieved.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I was privileged to open a £1 million extension to Stroud college in my constituency? Two thirds of that money came from local employers. Surely my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent announcement is tailor-made for areas such as Stroud.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that the college—the extension to which he opened last week—will be anxious to take advantage of the increased opportunities that will be made available to it under the proposal to play its full part in providing training and education responsive to the needs of local employers in his area.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Secretary of State will appreciate that I have little faith in what he says, as he recently sold the skill centre in my constituency to a consortium, about which his office will not give me details. Does he agree that the best way in which to train the engineers, the lathe operators and the skilled technicians of tomorrow is to encourage industry to do it, instead of discouraging it as the Government have done in the past 11 years?

Mr. Howard: I cannot think what lies behind the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because we have been encouraging industry and employers to train. We have not only encouraged them to do so, but all the evidence suggests that they have responded to that encouragement to an unprecedented extent. Between 1984 and 1989, the number of people in work receiving training increased by 70 per cent.; that demonstrates the progress we are making. Of course there is more to be done, and the proposal I have announced will help us in that.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I welcome the proposal that I have long advocated, particularly as an employer in a small firm and as chairman of the Alliance of Small Firms and Self Employed People. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that small businesses, which provide the majority of jobs where training can take place, will not be precluded from the schemes by making the terms on which money can be spent too difficult for those businesses to qualify? My right hon. and learned Friend and I know that small firms will train their young people, but the trouble is that, these days, the cost of an apprenticeship is so high that they need some input of money. The proposal will give that input. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that we must be careful not to make the conditions so difficult that small firms cannot participate.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the proposal. She will recall that I specifically identified small businesses as one of the criteria on which selective schemes could be put forward by the training and enterprise councils. We will be looking with interest at the bids that we receive to examine the extent to which they reflect the concerns of my hon. Friend and many others about this issue. [Interruption.]

Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has accused me of not being here for the statement, but I was.

Mr. Speaker: I know. I saw the hon. Lady or I would not have given her such a high place in the questions put to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is not this a paltry sum of money compared to £300 million of cuts in youth training? Will this money be directed at local education authorities or towards the sleazy sell-off to Astra Training


Services Ltd. of a number of skill centres? It is designed to give the little cabal inside the civil service extra money or is it genuinely aimed at training?

Mr. Howard: It is designed to improve both the quantity and quality of training provided to our young people. I am confident that it will achieve precisely that objective.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Is not the point precisely that, if this welcome new instrument is fashioned correctly, it will help to draw into the training business some employers and firms that would have been reluctant to come in under the previous dispensation?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is one of the proposals' main objectives, and one of the criteria that we shall consider when we assess the bids.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when I saw that this item was on the agenda, I realised that it was part and parcel of the idea to prevent any extra publicity for the Mid-Staffordshire victor? Then I thought that perhaps the Government were worried about the election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am asking the Secretary of State whether he is aware of this. Then, when I saw that only £12 million—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask one question.

Mr. Skinner: I am asking the question now, unless you, Mr. Speaker, want me to say what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campell-Savours) said yesterday.
When I found out that the amount was only £12 million, I realised what a pathetic programme it was—just enough money to cover the costs of Downing street and Buckingham palace for one year. I have some news for the Secretary of State: when the Labour party get into power, we will have a pilot training scheme and put its members on the gates outside No. 10 to pull them down.

Mr. Howard: The money that will be available for these proposals in 1992–93 will be £155 million. That may be an insignificant sum to the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, in which case they should have a word with the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is always telling us that the Labour party will not spend money on anything other than its two priority areas, among which training does not feature.

Mr. James Pawsey: I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to disregard the all-too-carping remarks from Opposition Members. I assure him that his imaginative project will receive a warm welcome from Conservative Members. The ideas that he has proposed to the House today are in line with the thinking of both the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. He might have some difficulty with local education authorities, particularly those under Labour control, if the city technology scheme is anything to go by.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. There is widespread enthusiasm among local education authorities for the ideas put forward by the CBI. I am confident that it will wish to play a full part in the development of the proposals. I fear that Opposition Members are the only odd ones out.

Mr. George Foulkes: I have heard the whole statement and the Secretary of State's answer to all the questions. Will he draw our attention to the parts of his statement which prevented its being made either yesterday or tomorrow?

Mr. Howard: I dare say that, whenever the statement was made, we would have had a similar reaction from the Opposition. Even the hon. Gentleman, with all his customary ingenuity, cannot find a criticism to make about the substance of the statement.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome this imaginative scheme. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that its beauty is that it is locally planned, with education authorities and training and enterprise councils working together to provide the training needed in the immediate locality? It is flexible, so that the training can be taken in work, at college or in the evening.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; both the general flexibility, to which he referred, and the extent to which the training provided will respond to local circumstances—local jobs and the need to provide the skills necessary in each local area—will mean that it will be warmly received outside the House.

Mr. Tony Worthington: Is the Secretary of State aware that £12 million for Britain is less than one third of the cost of providing training this year in Scotland? The Secretary of State for Scotland has recently been saying that he is in control of training within Scotland. Will the Secretary of State for Employment confirm that the scheme is to be introduced in Scotland in exactly the same way as the rest of Britain and that there is nothing distinctive about it there? If there is something distinctive about it, what is it?

Mr. Howard: Local enterprise companies in Scotland will be able to bid to put forward a pilot scheme and operate it in the same way as training and enterprise councils in England. We shall consider such bids on the same basis as we consider bids from England and Wales. I am sure that Scotland will wish to play its full part in the initiative.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Is not the key to success in the scheme the size of the resources that the Government are prepared to allocate to it? Do not we judge the Government's record by what they have already allocated to youth training and the decisions that they have set out in their expenditure plans? Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is still the Government's intention to cut £240 million from the youth training budget between this financial year and 1992 and 1993? Will he confirm also that it is still his intention to cut the amount of money available for each trainee's training from £50 a week to £33? Will he give a guarantee that any youngster wishing to follow any training course will have the money made available to him or her either by the employer or by the TEC, or will the money available to the TEC be cash-limited so that certain youngsters will be disqualified from using the freedom that the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims under the credit?

Mr. Howard: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber yesterday to listen to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). If he had heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, he would appreciate how


absurd it is for him to say that the only criterion is the money that the Government are putting forward. The hon. Member for Sedgefield reaffirmed the Labour party's commitment to a jobs tax, to a compulsory payroll tax and to the sanctions which he said that the Labour party would apply to employers. How can that be said while at the same time the hon. Gentleman suggests that the only thing that matters is the money which the taxpayer is contributing towards the cost of training?
I said yesterday—I have repeated it today—that employers are making an increasing contribution towards the cost of youth training. The only difference is that, under this Government, they are doing it rapidly and voluntarily, while under the Labour party's proposals they would be obliged to do it as part of a payroll tax. There will be ample, and more than adequate recourses available to ensure the success of these proposals. We are content to see them judged by the monitoring to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, referred and by the monitoring to which the Department will subject them. They represent an exciting new step forward. They will be warmly welcomed everywhere except on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Secretary Parkinson to make another statement. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order afterwards.

Mr. Nellist: My point of order is on the first statement.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after the next statement.

London (Traffic)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about transport in London.
On 14 December I published a discussion document, "Traffic in London", on traffic management and parking control, together with consultation papers on the four London assessment studies. I asked for comments by 28 February and I am now ready to announce my conclusions. I want to tackle the problems urgently and end the uncertainty as quickly as possible.
We already have in hand a major programme of transport investment in London. In the next three years substantial sums are to be spent on improving the capital's public transport. I have already approved a programme of investment of £2·2 billion over the next three years by London Regional Transport. It includes extending the Jubilee line to south London and docklands, completely upgrading the Central line, increasing the capacity and appearance of the most congested underground stations, modernising underground rolling stock, increasing the capacity of the Docklands light railway and extending it to Bank and to Beckton. Network SouthEast plans to spend £1·2 billion over the next three years. There will be 1,200 new coaches coming into use, giving the growing number of passengers a better service. Stations will be improved and some of them lengthened to provide more capacity. Work is in hand to improve rail links to London's principal airports.
I am pressing ahead with my £1·9 billion programme to improve London's trunk roads. Priority is being given to the north circular road and better access to east London. In addition, the boroughs have 41 major schemes worth some £445 million and the London Docklands development corporation plans to spend over £550 million on new highway developments inside docklands.
The consultants' studies were intended to establish what more could be done in four particular areas. The response to consultation has been very full. I shall be publishing an analysis shortly. The main points are clear. First, there was strong support for improvements to public transport. Secondly, there was widespread opposition to most of the major new road schemes suggested by the consultants. Thirdly, there was support for proposals to slow traffic in residential areas, both to improve safety and to deter rat-running. Fourthly, there was general recognition of the need for better traffic management but concern about the level of traffic and a wish to see higher priority given to buses, cyclists and pedestrians.
A number of the most important public transport schemes identified in the assessment studies are now under active examination. We are evaluating urgently with LRT and BR the proposed Chelsea-Hackney underground line and east-west cross-rail. Subject to the satisfactory outcome of the work, I expect to authorise the introduction of a Bill for one of these lines in November 1990. LRT is appraising the extensions of the Docklands light railway to Lewisham and of the east London line northwards to Dalston and Highbury and southward to east Dulwich. It is taking forward studies of the Croydon light rail system with the borough and BR. Funds to begin upgrading the Northern line are already in LRT's investment programme.


I have asked the chairman of LRT to consider further the case for the extension of the Northern line from Kennington southwards to Streatham and Crystal Palace and for a further extension of the east London line to Balham. I am asking BR to give further consideration to service improvements and new stations suggested by the consultants.
I have decided not to proceed with the major road schemes recommended by the studies. I have rejected the western environmental improvement route and the idea of a tunnel from Chiswick to Wandsworth. I have also ruled out schemes on the south circular such as those at Stanstead road and Brownhill road, and the tunnels under Clapham common, Dulwich park, Tulse Hill and Forest Hill. My Department will press ahead with limited improvements along the south circular, and A3 West hill to improve conditions in Wandsworth.
In south London, we shall not pursue new routes across Chipstead valley or along the Wandle valley. We shall take forward proposals for improving the M23-A23 junction, for a Hooley bypass, and for widening and junction improvements between Coulsdon and Thornton Heath. I have ruled out new roads at Norbury and Streatham, but I propose to consult the local authorities on establishing an improvement line so that new development is set back to allow eventual widening.
In the east London study area, a new route from Holloway road to King's Cross, the Archway road scheme and a tunnel under Parkland walk have been ruled out. I shall be taking forward improvements at the Archway roundabout and Highbury corner. I shall be discussing with the local authorities concerned ways of taking forward improvement of the inner ring road from King's Cross to Aldgate.
These road improvements will cost some £250 million. Normal statutory procedures will apply. They will bring worthwhile gains in safety and reliability. The new road schemes will be designed in a way that is sympathetic to the local environment. We shall discuss with the local authorities the scope for associated measures to improve safety on local roads. I shall consider suitable measures for grant aid. We shall pay close attention to provision for pedestrians and cyclists. My Department will work with the boroughs to develop a network for longer-distance cycling in London.
I am going ahead with my proposal for the appointment of a traffic director and for a priority route system—red routes—for the efficient movement of through traffic, especially buses. This will be based on the primary route network, as proposed in "Traffic in London" but subject to further consultation on the exact composition. Discussions with the Metropolitan police and the Home Office about the resources needed to enforce the red routes, as well as to maintain an adequate level of cover elsewhere, are under way. There will also be further consultation on the level of penalties for illegal parking.
I am planning, with the co-operation of the boroughs concerned, to start a pilot scheme covering the A 1 from Highgate to the Angel, round the inner ring road to Aldgate, and on to the A 13 Commercial road. The purpose of the pilot scheme will be to work out the practical details, such as how to cater for the needs of local residents and traders, and how the benefits can be used to help buses and introduce traffic calming in the surrounding

area. We shall be consulting widely with the local authorities, the police, bus operators and representatives of local residents and businesses.
Although I recognise that the local authorities would like to take over all parking enforcement, I believe that there should be a clear distinction between enforcement action against illegal parking and the regulation of permitted parking. A new system of permitted parking controls, together with a review of yellow lines, will give the local authorities a significantly increased role.
I shall be issuing guidance to the local authorities reminding them of the need to relate parking provision to the capacity of the road system. In general, they have opposed major new road schemes and have said that they would like to see less traffic. They should reflect these views when taking decisions on planning applications, particularly for new development with parking provision that would encourage the use of cars. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will consider what further guidance on the preparation of development plans will be necessary following the decisions I have announced today.
I shall be introducing legislation at the earliest opportunity to give effect to these changes. The most controversial issues about the future development of the road system in London have now been settled. Our plans for investment in public transport and roads will secure the status and success of London and its economic future.

Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State's statement represents a great victory for the London Labour boroughs, for the London Labour party and, above all, for the people of London, who have protested in their thousands against the crazy road building plans that have been put forward by the Government.
Is the Secretary of State aware that his climb down will cause a tremendous sense of victory throughout London? After six years of delay and concern, during which 48 road building options have blighted 100,000 homes, the Government have finally been forced to see common sense—just before the May local elections. I trust that the Secretary of State will have more success with this bribe than he had with the Stafford electrification proposals.
Is he aware that, in rejecting a road-based solution to London's transport problems, he has missed a major opportunity to develop a modern, reliable public transport system that Londoners could be proud of? Does he accept that the £10 million that was wasted on the consultants' report could have paid for more bus lanes, which would have enabled traffic to move much more quickly than it did during the six years of delay? Is not this blind electoral panic? The Secretary of State has dropped the unpopular plans that could make London's transport crisis even worse, but he has failed to adopt the plans that could improve the situation.
In his statement, the Secretary of State identified the results of the consultation exercise, not the conclusions—better public transport, no new road building, more traffic restraint and better traffic management: the very approach that he dismissed as an eastern European approach at the previous Conservative party conference.
If the Secretary of State has finally seen sense, why has he not offered us any prospect of immediate action to fulfil those aims? Is not it clear that he lacks any coherent strategy for tackling London's worsening transport crisis?


The Secretary of State's policy for London amounts to the introduction of red routes, a confused parking enforcement system which will see two agencies patrol the same streets, the vague hope that pedestrians and cyclists will be encouraged and the prospect of more public transport studies.
Will the Secretary of State now reconsider a return to a directly elected transport body which Londoners want, with the powers and the resources to do the job? Will he give the House the assurance that the nearly £4 billion worth of money allocated for the proposed roads should now be used to invest in the findings of his Department's central London rail study?
Finally, while the Secretary of State is in the mood for policy climb downs, will he announce that he is to rethink the financial targets for British Rail and London Regional Transport so that we can end the disgraceful situation in which Londoners pay the highest fares in Europe for the dirtiest, most overcrowded and least reliable transport system, forcing many of them on to the roads and making our problems worse? Will he do that quickly before London grinds to a complete standstill and begins to demand his resignation, as it did with his predecessor?

Mr. Parkinson: One of the difficulties in answering the hon. Gentleman is that he clearly does not understand what the House is discussing, so let me tell him. Consultants were appointed. They put forward their proposals, not the Department's proposals. I dismissed some of the consultants' proposals and I put the rest out for consultation. When the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and many other Labour Members urged me to abandon the major road programmes, I did not form the impression that they were trying to help me to win the London local elections in May.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a climb down, but it is difficult to climb down without climbing up. The proposals were never ours; they were those of the consultants. We put them out for consultation and we have declared the results. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should criticise us for listening, taking advice and carrying the consultation process through.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the public transport system. He was clearly sitting there reading his questions and not listening to what I had to say. Let me repeat the figures.

Mr. Prescott: I have read them.

Mr. Parkinson: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has read them.
London Underground will receive £2·2 billion.

Mr. Prescott: Who is paying for that?

Mr. Parkinson: The taxpayer. I am sick of giving the hon. Gentleman accountancy lessons in Parliament. If he comes to see me in my office, I will explain to him why he has been consistently wrong in his proposals.

Mr. Prescott: That is why the right hon. Gentleman is going down.

Mr. Parkinson: The only thing that is dragging me down is facing a reprehensible fellow such as the hon. Gentleman.
Our policy has not changed. We are pursuing a balanced transport policy and, as a result of our proposals, London will have a modernised underground system. I explained to the House why. Network SouthEast will be totally modernised. We have announced spending of £3 billion on London's roads. We are improving London's airports, air traffic control and access to airports. While the hon. Gentleman sits playing with his merchant ships in the bath, we get on with the business of modernising London's transport and giving London families a choice.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that in the Consolidated Fund there are two debates—No. 1 and No. 4—in which this matter may be outlined in greater detail and a reply may be received from a Minister. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to ask single questions so that we can get on to the Adjournment motion debate and to those subjects on the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. John Moore: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and in particular the way in which he has rejected so much that the consultants recommended which all Members of Parliament for Croydon—I hope that I may include you in that number, Mr. Speaker—objected to. Those proposals were unacceptable, in the unanimous view of Croydon council.
Although I have read the details of the press release, I know that my right hon. Friend would wish to reassure my constituents and especially those people who are concerned about the proposals for enormous flyovers in the Waddon Road and fiveways area. Can he confirm for the record that those proposals have been abandoned, as have the consultants' proposals? Also, will he confirm that the widening and the improvement of junctions will be done in consultation with the local authority? On the assumption that I can have that confirmation, I thank my right hon. Friend for listening so carefully to Members of Parliament for Croydon and to our constituents. I am grateful.

Mr. Parkinson: I am pleased to confirm that the consultants' proposals for flyovers have been totally dismissed and that we shall join with the local authority to discuss the improvements that my right hon. Friend recognises are necessary to some of the junctions in Croydon. I thank him for his welcome.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, but it seems to have taken the Government a long time to come to the conclusion that Londoners reached many years ago. If he is to become an increasingly green Secretary of State—as I hope he is—in an environmentally acceptable Department, he will have to persuade his colleagues in the Treasury to increase incentives for the use of public transport and disincentives for the use of private transport. The real test may be when he decides what to do about the proposals for Thameslink and a Channel tunnel rail link. Perhaps having rejected tunnels for roads he will reconsider them for railways.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. My predecessor and I have stressed that we envisage that public transport will play an important role. That is why investment in London transport has doubted


since we took the system over from the Labour-controlled Greater London council and why investment will increase next year and double again. We recognise the importance of public transport. We believe that a good public transport system will attract passengers, and that is what we are determined to provide.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I thank my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport for having listened so carefully to the representations that I made to them on behalf of my constituents, who warmly welcome the rejection of the consultants' proposals for Parkland walk and Archway road, whether above or below ground. May I remind my right hon. Friend that my constituents have been bedevilled by uncertainty about the proposals for Archway road which have come forward from every Administration during the past 25 years? That uncertainty has blighted the area and caused dereliction of property. Will he ensure that his proposal for the pilot red route scheme will not perpetuate that uncertainty for the future and will not generate extra traffic through my constituency?

Mr. Parkinson: I recognise the problems that my hon. Friend has faced and coped with for many years in dealing with a range of proposals for the Archway road. The Government have made their position clear: we want improvements to the two roundabouts at Archway and Highbury, and the red routes. We have made it clear that in implementing the red routes we will discuss with local residents and local shopkeepers the best way to do it so that they are not disadvantaged. I recognise the problems faced by those living in that area, and that is why we have been specific about our proposals. There are no other proposals.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: As the Secretary of State is a London Member, may I express the hope that he will be present to reply to a debate that I hope to initiate, later in the early hours? In reiterating the statement that his road schemes that remain will be sympathetic to the local environment, does he realise that he has forgotten our disagreement—or discussion—on 12 March concerning Oxleas wood? Will he now reconsider—not necessarily today—the controversial decision to destroy that wood, and not to put a tunnel under it, as recommended by the inspector? If there can be a tunnel for the M25 under Epping forest, why can there not be a tunnel under Oxleas wood?

Mr. Parkinson: I was originally a London Member, but the constituency boundaries changed in 1974 and I have been a Hertfordshire Member ever since. Therefore, I will be deprived of the opportunity of replying to the hon. Gentleman's debate early tomorrow morning. I am sure that that is a matter of great regret to both of us.
The decision on Oxleas wood was taken by the previous Secretary of State for the Environment and by my predecessor at the Department of Transport, and I do not propose to reopen the matter.

Mr. John Bowis: Given that three of the consultancy firms produced four of the worst possible road schemes—all converging in my constituency—does my right hon. Friend accept a quadruple welcome from myself and from my neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) for his rejection of the

road schemes for our part of London, and a loud welcome for his commitment to public transport schemes? Will he confirm that he will seriously examine schemes for the Hackney-Chelsea line to come further south through Wandsworth, and for the west London line linking Clapham junction—at long last—with the main London rail network?

Mr. Parkinson: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are aware of the need to improve public transport links with south London. That is why I have announced within the past couple of weeks that the Jubilee line will go to the Greenwich peninsula, why—as my hon. Friend will know—I am keen for there to be an extension of the Docklands light railway to Lewisham, and why we are taking the Jubilee line south of the river from Waterloo. I shall examine my hon. Friend's proposal for the Chelsea-Hackney line, because I share his conviction that we must improve underground lines south of the river.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that the statement that he has just made takes Londoners back to where they were four years ago, being largely an endorsement of the roads strategy of the Greater London council, which he abolished? Will he further reflect on what that four years has cost Londoners? Perhaps he would stop the nonsense about the present Government's spending more on investment in London transport by reminding the House that the control of investment in London transport was under Secretaries of State for Transport who could veto, individually and collectively, the GLC's capital budget?
Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House that his predecessors personally vetoed the GLC's plans to build the Docklands tube and the Hackney-Chelsea link, and to extend tube lines throughout south London? All those things would have been functional and operating if his predecessors had allowed the GLC to go ahead. What we see today is basically an admission that the Government have spent 10 years wrecking the public and private transport systems of London. They should resign as an apology to London.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman has a lot to answer for to Londoners. Very little of it is to his credit. He knows that he handed over an underground system that was in an appalling mess, because he preferred to spend the money on buying popularity through subsidy rather than on modernising the system. That is why we are having to spend so much, and are spending so much, on putting the system right.

Sir Barney Hayhoe: I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay scant regard to the political posturing and the sour attitude of Opposition Members. He is to be warmly congratulated on having undertaken a proper consultation exercise, on having listened to what people said to him and on having taken account of their views. Those of my constituents—over 13,000 of them—who petitioned against the road tunnel from Chiswick to Wandsworth will be very pleased with his decision not to proceed, as they will be with his decision to increase investment in public transport and to provide better traffic management. I ask my right hon. Friend and his Cabinet colleagues to look again at realistic and practical measures to restrain traffic. I am sure that they are needed and that they will come.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for welcoming our proposals. It seemed to us to be absolutely essential to bring an end to the uncertainty. Over 10,000—not 100,000—houses were blighted. We wanted to remove the worry from the people of London. I believe that we have done so.
As for my right hon. Friend's delicate suggestion about road pricing, that is not an immediately available option, as some of its proponents would have one believe. There are a number of serious problems to be overcome. However, I am watching the situation carefully, and I am in touch with my Dutch counterpart who, after a very long consultation period, is introducing such a system in the Hague.

Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State able to say when effective action will be taken to deal with the illegal parking that clogs so many main roads into central London? How much longer, for example, shall we have to put up with one northbound lane on Westminster bridge being regularly occupied by up to a dozen tourist coaches, an ice cream van and a hot-dog seller?

Mr. Parkinson: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman about thoughtless, illegal parking. One of the principles of red routes is that parking restrictions will be enforced stringently and that those who park there will be lucky if they ever see their cars again—that is a joke, Mr. Speaker, not a threat. I am beginning to sound like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). However, we intend to penalise those who thoughtlessly cause congestion.

Sir William Shelton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that both my constituents and I will be delighted by his statement, especially by his reference to the possible extension of the east London line and of the Northern line to Streatham? Does he also accept that we need some junction improvements and that the decision not to go ahead with the St. Leonard's relief road and the Clapham common underpass will be warmly welcomed? Will he reject any Opposition imputations of a U-turn and accept my congratulations on having held genuine consultations and on having accepted the representations I made on behalf of my constituents? The Opposition are not used to genuine consultation—which this has been.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for so warmly welcoming the proposals. He is quite right. These documents were produced by the consultants. We put them out for discussion, and we have announced our decision on them. I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that junction improvements are needed. We shall be discussing them with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. John Fraser: If the Secretary of State were the Home Secretary within a capital punishment system, he would certainly be the best person to hand out reprieves. I thank him for ending the uncertainty about tunnels in Dulwich park, thus saving the Prime Minister's home and also Tulse Hill. What priority does he intend to give to the extension of the underground route to Streatham and Crystal palace? And is he now to be transferred to deal with the poll tax?

Mr. Parkinson: If one wanted, I suppose that one could relate everything to poll tax, but if I were the hon.

Gentleman I should not waste my time on trying to relate this to poll tax. These major ideas for extending the underground will take some time to work through. None of these road schemes will be available before the end of the century. There are short-term proposals, but the longer-term, major proposals will take time to work through. However, we are determined to get a better service into south London.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Thousands of my constituents will be greatly relieved by my right hon. Friend's wise decision and very appreciative of the fact that he and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), have listened so carefully to our representations. Does he accept that the real lesson of the story is that in inner London and Greater London and in all urban and suburban areas the appropriate means of transport which is both socially and environmentally friendly is public transport, adequately invested and adequately pursued. We urge him strongly to continue that policy in the London area.

Mr. Parkinson: As I said to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the Government are pursuing a balanced policy. There is no point in pretending that there is no demand for roads and for the ability to drive in London, but we believe that the public are perfectly capable of making a sensible choice, provided that a choice is made available to them. That is why we want to provide a decent rail system and a decent underground system. We also want to provide a decent bus service and to make it possible, by means of the red routes, for people to drive. People are quite capable of making the choice that suits them best.

Mr. Tom Cox: The Secretary of State's statement is a direct result of the total opposition of thousands and thousands of Londoners to the scheme. They have also made it clear that, although they want a modern public transport system, they want the fares to be realistic. Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting. With 32 London boroughs pursuing their own traffic policies, totally unaware of what may be happening in adjoining boroughs, surely it is time for an overall traffic authority for London. Until that comes about, there will be no realistic development.

Mr. Parkinson: We had an overall strategic authority for London. It was a disaster. When it disappeared, it must have been the most unlamented body that had ever existed. It was no advertisement for strategic bodies and strategic planning. We have got the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to remind us of just how awful it was, if we are ever tempted to forget.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend and the Minister for Roads and Traffic deserve warm praise for proving that this Government listen and that they take careful note of the environmental points that are made by our constituents. The proposals are welcome. However, may I put to my right hon. Friend a point that relates to my constituency and the red route proposals? My constituents do not want the A243 between the M25 and the A3 made into a red route. They feel that it would be inappropriate. They would prefer a relief road around the village of Malden Rushett which would attract some private sector funding.

Mr. Parkinson: It is early days to settle the final details of red routes, as I said in my statement. The proposals were set out in the document that I put before the House in December. I will look at the point that my hon. Friend raised and report back to him.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most cost-effective, value-for-money way of providing access to and from east London, as well as for reducing tube congestion in central London, would be to go ahead with the Chelsea-Hackney tube line? Did he in his statement give a guarantee that that would go ahead, or did I detect a question mark over it?

Mr. Parkinson: We are looking at the two lines and evaluating them both—that is, east-west cross-rail and Chelsea-Hackney—but we do not believe that London could stand the simultaneous building of two major underground lines; it would completely snarl up London during the construction. So the work is in hand to assess them and, subject to that work going well, a Bill will be brought before the House by LRT for the new line in December.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcements, especially for the reduction of traffic in residential areas and for the improvement of public transport. Will he give urgent consideration to using some of the £3 billion for London roads to end uncertainty concerning the north circular road in Edmonton, where Pimms park is under threat and needs money spent on it for, among other things, a tunnel beneath it? Is he aware that a number of my constituents are still having their houses blighted by the lack of a decision about the north circular road?

Mr. Parkinson: I will look into that point and write to my hon. Friend about it. It arises only indirectly out of today's statement.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Does the Secretary of State recognise that people in south London welcome the fact that the blight cast over their homes by what were disastrous road plans has been lifted, but that their homes remain blighted by the Channel rail link plan? Does he further recognise that the people of south London will judge the Government's commitment to public transport by the overcrowded trains, filthy stations, frequent cancellations, infrequent buses pumping out exhaust and by the complete absence of tubes? Only when he deals with those problems and we see in practice the situation in public transport improve will the Government get any credit for their so-called commitment to public transport.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks about removing blight and uncertainty. What troubled me when I arrived at the Department was the huge number of houses that were under threat, and I was anxious to clear up that anxiety as soon as possible. I have bad news for the hon. Lady and the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench. Between now and the next general election we could see the investment of about £2·5 billion in public transport, and the results will be too noticeable even for Labour Members to miss.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: There will be great rejoicing in my constituency this evening at the blight having been lifted, at the fact that the road scheme will not

involve a grandiose underpass and at the decision to extend public transport into east Dulwich. While thanking my right hon. Friend for that, may I urge him to take steps to lift the other blight of the proposed route for the Channel tunnel rail link? Will he urge British Rail and its partners, Trafalgar House and Eurorail, to consider professionally and properly the alternative routes that have been suggested, with a through junction at Stratford going on to King's Cross and serving the whole of the United Kingdom, thereby immediately lifting the blight from Dulwich?

Mr. Parkinson: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued the cases for their constituencies, but nobody has argued more ferociously on behalf of his constituents than my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). I cannot promise him an immediate answer to the second part of his question, but I note what he says and appreciate the concern that the Channel tunnel rail link uncertainty is causing in Dulwich.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware of the enormous relief among my constituents that the proposal for a major new road from Archway to King's Cross has been dropped. I would add the personal observation that I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman will not now be sending in the bulldozers to knock down my home. Is he aware that there will be continuing concern, especially among traders and shopkeepers along Holloway road and Upper street, about the news of the pilot project for a red route? Will he guarantee to consult them in detail about his proposal, because they are deeply worried about the impact on their deliveries and businesses and on pedestrian shopping?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and it was a small pleasure to me that I was able to decide that we would not be knocking down his home. We recognise that it is important to introduce red routes properly. That will involve making arrangements with the local traders and local people so that their lives are not too disrupted. We believe that we can find ways of doing that, but we shall be discussing them with all those affected.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his considered approach to the issues involved and for the approach of the whole of his team. They have done a difficult job extremely well, and we are grateful to them.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are still totally opposed to any road widening of the south circular road? Will he confirm that the statutory protections to which he referred include public consultations followed by public inquiries if it is decided that proposals should go ahead after people have shown their dissatisfaction with them? Will he also confirm that he has scrapped the proposal for a light railway from Hammersmith to Roehampton because of the terrible environmental damage that that would cause at Barn Elms?

Mr. Parkinson: The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is yes.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not know what the Secretary of State plays with in his bath, but it clearly is not the strategic transport plan for London. Does not he think it disgraceful that £10 million


of taxpayers' money should have been spent on consultants' reports, for them finally, after all these years, to come up with the suggestion, and for him to decide, that public transport should be given preference in London?
Is it not a fact that transport planning in London is now predicated on Tory party electoral chances on 3 May and beyond and from where the Government can get private money to fund public transport schemes? No wonder the CBI and a number of other organisations say that London transport is now heading towards chaos. That state of affairs is entirely the responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Parkinson: If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, I will send him autographed copies of all four assessment studies. He will then see the volume of work that was done. He will see from my statement that many valuable suggestions were put forward by the consultants, suggestions that will help London and improve our transport system.
I repeat that the Government are following a balanced transport policy for London, and that means better tubes, massive investment, better Network SouthEast, better airports, better bus routes and the red routes. We are systematically improving all aspects of London's transport arrangements simultaneously, and Londoners will have the choice that they deserve in the years ahead.

Mr. Toby Jessel: My right hon. Friend referred to airports and road traffic between central London, the west end and the City and Heathrow. In view of the probable general increase in road traffic, as mentioned in the White Paper, reflecting the general level of national prosperity, may I ask whether he is aware that it would be totally wrong for the Government to accept that as an argument to justify any increase in the number of helicopters travelling between central London and Heathrow? Helicopters make a peculiarly and particularly loud and unpleasant whirring noise which would be detrimental not only to the well-being of my constituents but to the work of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Parkinson: There is unlikely to be any substantial increase in the number of helicopter flights as a result of anything that I have said today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement does not represent an adequate transport policy for London? The red routes will encourage more traffic to come in and out of central London. Does he agree that powers are already available to prevent bus lanes from being clogged and that the red routes are a precursor of future motorway plans? Is he aware that in my constituency there is overwhelming opposition not only to major road building, but to the demolition of the Archway island, the widening of Highbury corner and the red routes because they will merely bring more traffic into the area? We require a transport policy for London that will reduce the number of cars and freight vehicles on the road, and that puts public money into public transport, and we require a democratic form of decision making in London rather than the traffic dictator whom the Secretary of State expects to appoint.

Mr. Parkinson: I have no plans to appoint a traffic dictator. The traffic director will be responsible for the

management of the red routes. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and, not for the first time, I totally disagree with him.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Would not my right hon. Friend be wise to open again the question of a tunnel under Oxleas wood, which borders my constituency? As a strong supporter of the east London river crossing, I must say that £10 million, as recommended by the inspector, to save an ancient oak woodland and a site of special scientific interest is a small sum.

Mr. Parkinson: As I said earlier, the matter was considered carefully over a long period by my predecessor and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the then Secretary of State for the Environment. They took a decision, and I have no plans to reopen the matter.

Mr. Harry Ewing: As I represent a constituency north of London, I have listened with great interest to the statement and to the exchanges. Is the Secretary of State aware that, now and again, the London transport system actually works? Today, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), having driven a coach and horses through the Tory majority in Mid-Staffordshire, has arrived at the Palace of Westminster after having travelled through the traffic of London without too much trouble. The greatest hold-up that my hon. Friend has experienced is here in the Palace of Westminster. Would it not have been better for the Secretary of State to have spent today playing with his Dinky toys? We could have heard the statement tomorrow.

Mr. Parkinson: That was a rather elaborate joke, but it was rather better than most of the hon. Gentleman's jokes.

Mr. John Maples: Many hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Lewisham will be grateful to my right hon. Friend to know that they are not to have a new four-lane highway driven through their neighbourhood, with all the attendant noise and pollution. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has responded so positively to their representations. Does he agree that the Opposition's churlish response to his statement makes one wonder whether their opposition to the road proposals was ever sincere? My right hon. Friend seems to have shot their fox pretty spectacularly, and they obviously resent that.

Mr. Parkinson: One of the strange features of the Opposition is that they spent their time coming to see me and saying that they hoped that I would reject the roads, yet when I do they accuse me of electioneering. We have taken sensible and carefully considered decisions, and we have listened to the people.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know how grateful my constituents are to him and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for abandoning the western environmental improvement route, which has for so long blighted west London and my constituency in particular. My constituents are keen that the Chelsea-Hackney line which is misnamed and should be called the Fulham-Hackney line because it starts in my constituency —should be built as rapidly as possible as the congestion and overloading on the District line are serious.


In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent appraisal for investment to be made in the District line to improve the services there?

Mr. Parkinson: I hope that my hon. Friend will sort out the matter with our right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott). I am happy to settle for the name that has been agreed between them—always assuming that that is the chosen line. There is a huge programme of investment in improving the rolling stock on the existing lines, including the District line, which is being pressed forward now.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: My right hon. Friend's statement that there will be no new road in Norbury will be greatly welcomed by Norbury residents. They are grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for listening so carefully to the representations, including those from Norbury councillors. In the long run, many of us in Croydon look forward to the day when the underground will extend as far as us.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. [Interruption.] For obvious reasons, I shall keep my answers short.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive and sensible statement. May I press him to consult our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the recruitment of more traffic wardens as the Metropolitan police reckon that they need 50 per cent. more wardens to make the red routes work? Will he also promise action on haphazard road works which add so much to traffic delays in central London?

Mr. Parkinson: There is a shortage of traffic wardens, with a substantial number of vacancies. I am advised that if we extend their powers and authorise them to order the

removal of cars, the towing away of cars and wheel clamping, it will increase their job satisfaction and make recruitment easier. We must hope that that is the case.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Does the Secretary of State accept that everything he has said today reeks of political defeat? Does he understand that everything he was forced to do in rejecting the road building schemes could have been done far earlier, thus preventing blighting, saving millions of pounds and enabling real progress to be made in solving the traffic chaos of this capital city? Does he accept that his list of public transport proposals does not impress because he has rehearsed them all in the House before? The technical feasibility of many of them has already been approved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said, what they lack is public money.
Will the Secretary of State at last give hope to Londoners by committing the £3 billion of public money that would have been spent on those roads to public transport, thus relieving the pressure on the fares of the travelling public and easing congestion on our roads?

Mr. Parkinson: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Lady comes to see me and says that she hopes that we shall listen to what Londoners say, yet when we do says that it is a political climbdown. That shows how paper thin the Opposition's attachment to democracy is.
On the second point, I must make the point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) clearly did not understand. We are talking about specific assessment studies on four areas only. The broad arrangements for London's transport improvements are in addition to that and huge programmes are in hand. Just because consultants include proposals in assessment studies, it does not mean that the Government have earmarked money for them. There is a long way to go before we allocate any money and, as I have pointed out already, the proposals would not have been implemented until the turn of the century. The hon. Lady is, as usual, talking charming nonsense.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the rearrangement of business for tomorrow, Wednesday, 28 March.
The business for tomorrow will now be as follows: Timetable motion on the Social Security Bill, followed by progress on remaining stages of the Social Security Bill. Proceedings on the Bill will be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 3 April.

Dr. John Cunningham: As even the Prime Minister recognised that the electors of Mid-Staffordshire were sending her a message, why have the Government deliberately delayed the keeper of that message for more than one and a half hours by putting on three statements today? Has not the graceless, churlish behaviour of the recently defeated Tory candidate in the by-election been matched by the Government's business managers this afternoon?
Is the Leader of the House aware that we deplore his abrupt announcement of a guillotine on the Social Security Bill tomorrow? Is it not outrageous, when the Government only last night tabled four new clauses and 37 amendments to this legislation—clauses and amendments which the House has never seen before—that they are now effectively pre-empting time in the debate and preventing my hon. Friends from moving Labour's amendments? Are they not simply doing this to prevent yet more embarrassing defections and votes against by their own supporters?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to make allegations of deliberate delay by the Government. We are continuing our calm conduct of Government business in making statements today, the first two of which have been welcomed by the House. The third had to be made now; it could not be made tomorrow because it relates to tomorrow's business.
In due course, the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), who was elected in the by-election last week, will commence her brief stay in the House.
The timetable motion is designed to give rather more time than would have been available under the arrangements made through the usual channels. The amendments and new clauses tabled for discussion tomorrow are for the most part proposals produced in response to discussion in Committee. The time available will be entirely appropriate for their consideration.

Mr. Ian Gow: If the accusation made by the shadow Leader of the House should be valid, would that not be something that the House ought to take into account when it comes to consider whether to renew the televising of this place? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the timetable motion that he has announced will be greatly welcomed by Government Members?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome in the last part of his intervention. I make no comment on his first observation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Leader of the House not recognise that timetable motions at every opportunity are increasingly taking

liberties with the House in general and individual Members in particular? Tomorrow's proposal not only carves out Opposition parties from being able to do their proper job on Report but is no doubt intended to carve out members of his own party who tried to amend the National Health Service and Community Care Bill last week and gave the Government a substantial shock. Will he agree that that has produced a response of even more autocratic behaviour by an ever more autocratic Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has to try his best, but there is no foundation whatsoever for that interpretation. The Committee proceedings on this Bill proceeded in a normal, orderly fashion. They included consideration of no more than four new clauses. However, on Report the House is now required to deal with some 20 new clauses tabled at a very late stage by the Opposition against the background of a threat by Opposition Members to run the proceedings for 23 hours through the night. We are making a proposal to handle in an orderly fashion proposals that the House will need to consider and will be able to consider.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us consider that the timetable motion on the Social Security Bill is a sensible way of proceeding? Is he aware, further, that most of us believe that the remarks by the shadow Leader of the House were entirely synthetic, when we recall the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) standing at the Dispatch Box when in government and moving five separate guillotine motions? Does he recall that, when I took my seat after a by-election victory under the last Labour Government, I was forced to wait until 6 o'clock in the evening?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the support offered by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bob Clay: Will the Leader of the House admit that one of the major reasons for the decision to guillotine the business tomorrow is to avoid discussion of new clause 8, which is supported by Opposition Members and also by many Government Members? The new clause would provide compensation for British nuclear test veterans suffering from various cancers and for their dependants. Is it not the case that the Government, having filibustered that Bill out as a private Member's Bill earlier this month, are now having to resort to a guillotine motion to find other ways to prevent this from being debated and voted on, because they dare not risk even five minutes' discussion on the measure, so weak is their disgraceful position on the whole question?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no foundation for that claim. The time that will be available for discussion of this Bill under the timetable motion will exceed that previously agreed through the usual channels. If the time is used sensibly, time will be devoted to the hon. Member's new clause as well as to other matters under consideration.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the reports in today's Daily Mirror and Morning Star in which the Labour party announced that an all-night sitting on the Social Security


Bill was to take place tomorrow? Will he not accept, therefore, that these are bogus and synthetic objections to a very sensible proposal?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree.

Mr. Alex Salmond: How can the Leader of the House justify a guillotine on the Social Security Bill when so many hon. Members want to explain to the Government how doubling the capital allowance on the poll tax without altering the taper will still leave people on tiny incomes qualifying for the tiniest of rebates? Will it not make it more difficult for the Secretary of State for Scotland to contribute to the debate to explain why reshuffling £4 million from his own budget can somehow be presented as a triumph over the Prime Minister?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That would not arise in the course of this debate, in any event. I repeat that the time likely to be available for discussion under the timetable motion will exceed that agreed through the usual channels. That cannot be unreasonable.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member made the affirmation required by law:

Mrs. Sylvia Lloyd Heal, for Mid-Staffordshire.

BILLS PRESENTED

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (PROTECTION FROM TOBACCO)

Mr. Joe Ashton, supported by Mr. John Home Robertson, Sir George Young, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Allen McKay, presented a Bill to increase the penalties for the sale of tobacco to persons under the age of 16 years; to make illegal the sale of tobacco to such persons from vending machines; to require local authorities to enforce those provisions and publish reports; to prohibit the sale of unpackaged cigarettes; to prohibit advertising of tobacco or tobacco sponsored events from retail premises; to require the publication of warning statements on cigarette packages and in retail premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

COMMUNITY CHARGE (LANDLORD AND TENANT)

Mr. John Greenway, supported by Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Sir Hal Miller, Sir Michael Shaw, Mr. Michael Shersby, Sir John Wheeler, Sir Fergus Montgomery, Sir Hugh Rossi and Mr. Michael Alison, presented a Bill to require landlords to reduce the rent of a tenant by the proportion of rent previously contributed by the tenant towards the payment of domestic rates; to give rent assessment committees the jurisdiction to hear and determine questions arising; and for connected purposes: And at the same was read the First time; and was ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Medical Services for Women

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to medical services for women, including screening, well woman clinics and other services; to amend the Abortion Act 1967; to make provision in respect of related duties and responsibilities of health authorities; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is about women's health. A large part of women's experience of health care is linked to their role as child bearers, but since control over reproduction— contraception, pregnancy, fertility and child birth—has been vested in doctors, these normal processes have become highly mechanised in recent years, and women have been provided with little choice of the services they receive and from whom they receive them.
The National Health Service birth control service performs a vital role, but Tory cuts in the National Health Service have meant that birth control facilities are becoming increasingly inadequate. An effective policy should be based on appropriate education and advice. To ensure that the message gets across to those most at risk, the case for effective, safe contraception and family planning should be made in schools and encouraged through the media. It is important, however, that contraceptive advice should be available to all who need it. That means that it should not be limited to information only about invasive measures of control. Every woman should have appropriate access to confidential advice and free, safe contraception at local centres.
Infertility causes grave personal distress. As many as one couple in six are infertile. Many district health authorities do not hold infertility clinics separately from their routine gynaecological work load or fail to provide literature or counselling for patients. In many health districts, artificial insemination by donor is not available and in nearly half of those where it is available the service is run outside the National Health Service. Only one in vitro fertilisation unit is funded solely by the NHS. Women have a right to access to those facilites. Before they undergo elaborate tests for infertility, which are often distressing, sperm tests should be carried out on the men because those tests, unlike those for women, are relatively simple.
Maternity services are crucial to the provision of women's services. The creation of the National Health Service extended the rights of pregnant women, but to a large extent doctors have taken over the rights of women in the birth process. For well over 10 years, women have criticised the National Health Service maternity services for being insensitive to their needs and for being too technically orientated in normal pregnancies and births. Hospitals have responded, but women still complain about the fragmentation of ante-natal and delivery care. Different tasks are performed by different people. The woman is not treated as a whole person, and she rarely sees the same person twice. That makes it difficult for her to build up the necessary relationship of trust with her midwife.
There is also concern about the lack of information about the hazards of pregnancy, the obstetric techniques, the high level of technology used in pregnancy, labour and delivery, and the adoption of blanket, routine practices in hospitals. Of course there are circumstances in which


technology is essential to the health of mother and baby. Also, many women find the use of technology reassuring and value the relief from pain that it can provide, but both positions must be respected. The woman must have the right to say how she wants her child delivered safely and confidently, within a caring, supportive framework.
The skills of midwives should be used to the full in the interests of achieving a close, supportive relationship between the mother and the midwife. In an emergency, the midwife should be able to call upon hospital colleagues, a consultant obstetrician and, if necessary, a flying squad—an emergency ambulance fitted with the necessary equipment to get the mother to hospital.
Continuity of care should be provided by reorganising the way in which midwives work. When women attend appointments, there should be sufficient time for questioning and discussion in cheerful surroundings, with a play area provided for accompanying children. No procedures during child birth should be carried out without the specific consent of the mother, unless she is alone and there is an emergency. There should be a flexible discharge system appropriate to the needs of the woman. More research should be undertaken into post-natal depression.
Cancer screening is desperately important to women. There are long delays, sometimes of months, in smear test results, because of acute shortage of trained laboratory staff. Every month's delay increases the risk of advanced cervical cancer. The Tory record on cervical cancer offers practically no hope of an effective screening programme to help the 15,000 women who die from breast cancer each year. Yet 3,000 with breast cancer and 1,000 with cervical cancer could be saved by proper screening.
We need an effective breast cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment service, meeting strict national technical and organisational standards. That should be provided by every health authority.
A properly resourced national cervical cancer screening programme, with computerised call and recall systems, should be set up in every health district to cover every woman at risk. All women should have the right to a smear test every three years. Mobile screening facilities should be provided in shopping centres, housing estates and workplaces, and women at work should be given paid time off to attend regular screening. The suffering and death of women from diseases which are detectable and curable, if diagnosed in their early stages, are totally unacceptable.
At the centre of provision for well women in society is the key element of prevention provided through well woman centres. The philosophy behind the centres is the promotion of the well-being of the whole person, with the emphasis on encouraging women to be responsible for their own health. It is vital to ensure that health authorities provide well woman services to meet minimum standards in every health authority. Each authority should be required to provide a secure, attractive place for women to meet to talk about the many problems that they face, such as tranquilliser dependency, menopausal problems and the problems of still-birth and miscarriage. We need the reintroduction of hospital services run solely by women for women. Women should have the right to see a woman doctor. Well woman clinics can help in the development of self-help groups and are crucial to the future of women's health.
Finally, I propose an amendment to the Abortion Act 1967. It is appalling that important and difficult decisions about their own fertility and about whether to continue with a pregnancy should be removed from the realm of women's choice and control, and should become a political battleground of the minority, causing distress, hardship and pain to many. The case for legal abortion has been made many times. The propect of forcing women into back-street abortions is beyond contemplation.
I propose that the time limit in the Abortion Act should be abolished, that the possibility of prosecution of doctors is removed and that the law in England and Wales is standardised with the law in Scotland. I commend the measure to the House in the name of women's health.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Frank Doran, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Diane Abbott and Mr. Tony Banks.

MEDICAL SERVICES FOR WOMEN

Ms. Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to medical services for women, including screening, well woman clinics and other services; to amend the Abortion Act 1967; to make provision in respect of related duties and responsibilities of health authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 April and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

Adjournment (Easter and Monday 7 May)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 5th April, do adjourn until Wednesday 18th April and, at its rising on Friday 4th May, do adjourn till Tuesday 8th May.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. John Biffen: I strongly support the motion and wish to speak to a task that I should like to consign to the Treasury Bench during those few valuable days. It relates to local authority finance. As a result of recent weeks, the House still has ringing in its ears the unfairnesses of the rating system. That unfairness is undoubtedly true. However, the system was accepted— albeit uneasily—by generations of politicians and was paid for, with anger and resignation, by succeeding generations of ratepayers. Its longevity can be measured by the fact that it originated from Elizabethan days.
My request is simple and in that context. It is the desire that the inequities and injustices of the community charge shall not become perpetuated through time by weary resignation on the part of either the electorate or Parliament. I do not think that the electorate will be disposed to accept it with weary resignation.
Whatever the virtues of the community charge—I believe that they are substantial —none the less, I limit my remarks to saying that they are vitiated by a lack of regard for the principle of the ability to pay. The community charge needs to be reconsidered, judged by that canon. It needs to be reconsidered in respect of the abatements made and the effectiveness of the transitional arrangements for those who have a sharply enhanced commitment. Finally, it needs a reconsideration that will set aside the flat-rate principle and relate the charge to a graduated system under which the higher the income, the more will be paid.
Those principles should be embodied in a review to be undertaken by the Government. That review should be undertaken speedily. Hence, it is relevant to the Easter recess. Above all, that review should be undertaken in a spirit of calm and reasoned judgment, and that is why an argument addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is so relevant.

Rev. Martin Smyth: It is a privilege to be called to speak in the Easter Adjournment debate because for many people Easter symbolises hope. The Secretary of State for Employment made a statement earlier about training and could not give an immediate answer when asked why his statement would not apply to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Office seems to be in orbit somewhere outside the House.
You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that some weeks ago I asked the Leader of the House whether the Government would oppose the private Member's Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), which sought to restore the right of this Chamber, after 18 years of limbo, to legislate for Northern Ireland by primary legislation in this House rather than by the obscene Order in Council, which does not allow us to examine legislation. On that occasion, the response was that we should have to wait till Friday. When

Friday came, what we had suspected would happen did happen. The Whips objected and the private Member's Bill did not make any progress.
Today, therefore, I ask that the Easter period brings hope for Northern Ireland on two levels. The first relates to security. Last week in London the President of Czechoslovakia revealed something about the trade in Semtex from Libya to terrorist organisations. Last weekend the people in Ballymena and Castlederg again suffered carnage. I therefore make the plea that the security forces in Northern Ireland should be given the same latitude as was manifested last summer when they contained a planned terrorist campaign that would have brought mayhem to the Province, and that they be given a more active role.
In making that plea, I ask that hon. Members who sometimes join the media in expressing more concern for the perpetrators of violence than for its victims give some consideration to the members of the security services in Northern Ireland and to the civilians of Northern Ireland who have been such victims.
I shall never forget the impression that was made on me during my by-election campaign when I met a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who had been mutilated in a bomb explosion in County Tyrone, yet years afterwards there was a serenity in his being that challenged me. That is reflected in all the people of Northern Ireland—those in the security services and civilians—who have turned tragedy into triumph as they have manifested courage and forgiveness.
Secondly, I draw the attention of the House again to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dublin. We in this House were led to believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement had been honourably worked out by two Governments who understood the issues. We in the Unionist party had never been under any misapprehension about the use of language. We were told in the House that for the first time the status of Northern Ireland was guaranteed. However, if one looks back to the Sunningdale conference of 1974, one can read the two declarations: first, that
the Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status.
Beside that is the declaration:
The British Government solemnly declared that it was, and would remain, their policy to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom.
In the Dail on that occasion, the former Taoiseach said:
The Government were well aware that differences exist in the constitutional law of the Republic of Ireland and of the United Kingdom as to the status of Northern Ireland but they considered that it would not be helpful to debate those constitutional differences.
The Taoiseach then referred to
the de facto status of Northern Ireland
within the constitution of the Republic of Ireland.
When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed at Hillsborough, we were assured that the status of Northern Ireland was accepted, but there is no definition of that status in article 1. I remind the House that two agreements were signed on that occasion. Despite the number of times that this has been emphasised, I am amazed by the extent to which the general public and Members of Parliament have missed that fact. I repeat that two agreements were signed. One was signed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


and by the An Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland. That was the British agreement. The Republic of Ireland agreement was signed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and by the An Taoiseach of Ireland. That difference was accepted by our Government.
We know that the then Cabinet Secretary, Robert Armstrong, confessed in Australia that in more than one place he had developed a habit of being economical with the truth. Churchill may have used other English language to describe it when he spoke of terminological inexactitudes. There is no excuse now for the Government, the House or the nation to be in any ambiguity about the correct position. In the Supreme Court we had it spelt out abundantly clearly. The wiliness of Dr. FitzGerald who saw the agreement as an aspiration has now been exposed. The Supreme Court made it abundantly plain that the agreement has legal force and is a constitutional imperative.
I appreciate that we are asked to keep our speeches concise and that others wish to speak in this Adjournment debate. I shall close by referring to an article in the Irish Times on 26 March. We were reminded that
Fianna Fail's first policy objective is the reunification of Ireland. Fine Gael's subtitle is 'The United Ireland Party'… something more than a desired 'aspiration'… This State has no idle, vague ambition to exercise authority over Northern Ireland. It is legally obliged to seek to give effect to that authority to which it lays claim.
In the Viewpoint column of the Belfast Evening Telegraph on Monday evening, we were reminded:
It is not the Unionists who put the obstacle of the constitutional claim in place in 1937.
The solemn international agreement of 1925 was unilaterally set aside by the Fianna Fail Government, under de Valera, who introduced that new constitution.
We plead with the House and the Government to give Northern Ireland its proper place within the Kingdom, remove any constitutional ambiguity and govern us as part of the Kingdom.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak briefly in this debate. I am between meetings of the New Building Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, in which I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has a particular interest.
I wish to make a plea to my right hon. and learned Friend on a different subject. Will he have the earliest and most earnest discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a subject which is exercising the minds of people throughout the country—the community charge, or poll tax? I speak as a long-standing and consistent opponent of the legislation. Without any recrimination, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the tax.
It has been said frequently and with accuracy that the introduction of any new tax is a difficult process. That is certainly the case with the community charge. What matters to our constituents who have to pay the tax is the amount that they are called on to pay. I believe that the tax is fundamentally unsound and unfair, in that it is a

flat-rate and regressive tax, but even those problems could be overcome if the amount that people were asked to pay was much smaller.
I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend in business questions and on other occasions to think again about the cost of education. If the cost of education, or even just teachers' salaries, were removed from local government and given to central Government, the poll tax or community charge would be reduced dramatically. Instead of paying about £330, my constituents would pay about £200 less, or perhaps an even lower sum.
I could adduce many arguments in favour of taking education out of the community charge, but I shall restrict myself to a few because I wish to be brief, and to take no more than about three minutes. The Government have rightly made education more of a national concern. We have the national curriculum and the possibility of schools opting out. It is conceivable, but not likely, that within the decade a considerable number of schools will no longer be under the jurisdiction of local authorities.
For the foreseeable future, we shall have a declining young population. Therefore, increasingly those who pay the poll tax or community charge will not benefit directly from education in the way that they benefit from other local authority services. Logic and equity both point in one direction: we should remove the burden of education from local government and give it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
None of us in the House is completely stupid, so we know that education must be paid for. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has many opportunities of raising revenue, as we have been reminded during the past week. If education were removed from the responsibility of local authorities, it would have a dramatic effect. It would have a dramatic political effect on the Government, which I would welcome. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties who are worried, as I am, about the bills that people will have to pay would welcome anything that would reduce the bills significantly.
It is no good the Government tinkering at the edge or providing extra money here and there. It has been calculated that, if the Government gave another £3 billion to £4 billion between this year and next, the present level could be maintained. That would be wholly unacceptable. Therefore, let us deal with the matter and grasp this nettle. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on one side this very night and urge upon her the course that I recommend?

Mr. Tony Benn: I wish to raise another important matter—the procedure for appointing the next Archbishop of Canterbury. I do so because the matter is urgent. The archbishop must have notified the Government before the announcement was made on Sunday. Therefore, the procedure for selecting his successor must be well under way. If we allow the matter to rest until the day after the Easter recess, it might be generally assumed that there was no other way to proceed than by procedure that has been used hitherto.
The House will know that the normal procedure is that the Crown Appointments Commission puts forward two names and the Prime Minister chooses between them. There is no opportunity for the Church as a whole to be consulted on the matter. As the Church of England is not


a democratic body, it does not have a ballot to elect its archbishop, so members of the Church of England have no formal say whatever in the choice of the person who is to lead them.
Even though the Church of England is a state Church—I shall come to that later— the House of Commons has no right to say anything about the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yesterday, I asked Mr. Speaker whether it would be in order to ask the Prime Minister about the appointment of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Mr. Speaker said that it was out of order for a Member of Parliament to ask the Prime Minister to answer on matters relating to the royal prerogative. Without going into detail, Mr. Speaker's ruling probably went further than he meant it to. Going to war and signing treaties are done under the prerogative, but we are allowed to question the Prime Minister on those matters. The Clerks may have to issue a statement clarifying the ruling, as President Reagan experienced from time to time during his time at the White House.
Mr. Speaker must have been saying that the Prime Minister is not accountable to Parliament for the advice that she gives to the sovereign on the matter. Therefore, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be appointed by a little commission called the Crown Appointments Commission, the chairman of which is appointed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will make a choice between two candidates, if present procedure is followed. That is how the successor to Dr. Runcie will be appointed.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is not simply a bishop in the Church in England; he is widely recognised as the head of the Anglican community worldwide. Through the Lambeth conference and in other ways, he has spiritual responsibilities that go well beyond, thank God, the political control of the Prime Minister of the day, who exercises neither spiritual nor worldwide responsibilities. We should ask ourselves whether the time has come when we should make a further amendment in procedures that have changed over many centuries to allow the Church to decide who it wishes to be its new archbishop.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he is right in saying that the Prime Minister must choose between two names submitted to her? Does she not also have a right to name yet another person?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do how such things work: what is a practice becomes a custom, and then becomes custom and practice. I do not believe that any Prime Minister would reject both names and go for a third. Although the theoretical power of the Prime Minister over the Church, which is exercised by the royal prerogative, is absolute, as is the theoretical power of Parliament over Church Measures and the power of the Crown to reject all our legislation, that does not happen. One can reasonably assume that, unless the procedure is altered, the Church will put forward, through the commission, two names, and from them the Prime Minister will make a choice.
Yesterday, I tabled an early-day motion that I hope will attract wide support, because it is not related in any way to the present Prime Minister. I would, and will, feel exactly the same when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) exercises similar responsibilities during his first, second, third and fourth Administrations.

This time round, the Church should insist upon a slightly new procedure so that the Crown Appointments Commission puts forward one name only.
As the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) has already said, it is true that, in theory. it is open to the Prime Minister to reject the one name and ask for more or to choose someone else. If the Church said that it had thought carefully about its role in relation to the state and decided to put forward one name, the second part of my early-day motion asks for the Prime Minister to convey that name, without comment or change, to the Crown for the formal approval required.
The change I am proposing is modest. When Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister of the Government of which I was a member, he introduced the procedure under which two names were put forward. The unfettered discretion once exercised by Prime Ministers was limited by that new custom and practice. Anyone familiar with Victorian politics will know that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli had an ecclesiastical secretary, and that the excitement about who would be given certain appointments was widely shared and a matter of speculation. Such decisions were entirely in the hands of the then Prime Minister, but all that has changed.
In recent years, I am glad to say, there has been a steady loosening of the control of Parliament and the state over the Church of England. I shall not go into the detail, but when Henry VIII nationalised the Church of England because he was not prepared for a foreign potentate to take more than half his state's revenues, it marked the beginning of a rigid enforcement. In 1662 the Great Ejectment took place, when the dissenters were thrown out of their parishes. In 1662, the Rev. William Benn was ejected from the parish of Dorchester under the Five Mile Act. Whether or not he is my ancestor in physical terms, he certainly is in spiritual and dissenting terms.
The House will know that, in the 19th century, it was not possible for a Catholic to serve in Parliament—it is still not possible for a Catholic priest to serve. It was not possible for a Jew to serve in Parliament. One of the men I most admire, Charles Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, was kept out on the ground that he was an atheist. The House will know that he turned up, would not take the oath and was thrown out. He was re-elected, came back, would not take the oath and was thrown out again. When he came back the third time he said, "All right, I'll take the oath if that's what you want." But he was told, "You can't, you are an atheist," and he was thrown out again. That is how atheists got into the House. I always solemnly affirm, rather than swear, in memory of Charles Bradlaugh.
The parliamentary procedure has changed, and in recent years, with the establishment of the Synod, the Church has had far greater self government. We had the recent example of the Clergy (Ordination) Measure when the House wisely decided not to have a confrontation with the Church on the ordination of divorced persons. It therefore reversed a decision that had been taken at 3.30 am in July because it knew that, if it pushed its luck too far, the Church of England would seek disestablishment.
I am, of course, a disestablishmentarian, and have been for some time. Now is not the occasion to go into that matter, because my proposal could be contained within the traditions of steady separation that have developed between Church and state. I believe that the establishment


of the Church is a much bigger and livelier issue than the House might appreciate. The troubles that have occurred with the blasphemy laws concerning the writings of Salman Rushdie have, in part, derived from the fact that Muslims in Britain ask why they should be a second-class denomination. When a Christian commits an act of blasphemy, he can be punished in the courts, but a Muslim who blasphemes against his faith cannot. The question of blasphemy, a burning issue in some of our cities and worldwide, is inextricably bound up with the continuation of establishment.
I believe that my view is widely shared in the House. I do not know whether a majority hold that view, but from private conversations I know that people in many parties believe that the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he or she may be, is not the right person to choose, even from the limited choice between two candidates, the head of the Anglican community worldwide. I was brought up to believe in that view, which I hold strongly.
I believe that the time will come when the House will want to make a change, and I know that within the Church there is a growing movement in favour of disestablishment. I believe that the role of a bishop and of a Prime Minister are wholly different. I was brought up on the Old Testament, where the conflict was between the kings and the prophets—the kings exercised the power and the prophets preached righteousness. I doubt whether the Bible story would have been quite the same if the kings had appointed the prophets, but that is what we continue to do under the practice of an established Church.
I hope that the House will support my early-day motion, so that those in the Church who are anxious about present arrangements realise that there is an alternative open to them now, within the existing law. They can put forward one name only and decline to put forward two names. By doing so, the Prime Minister would have the difficult decision of rejecting the Church nomination and seeking to appoint someone else. As the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West has already said, in law she is entitled to do that, but I do not believe that the Prime Minister would be ready to take such a decision.
I hope that I have not abused the debate on the Easter Adjournment, as I believe this is one of the few occasions when a wholly powerless House of Commons can seek to influence events by argument. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), fresh from his triumphs on the desert island—a very good programme—has advocated his argument on the poll tax. We have heard the arguments about Northern Ireland. Since the House has lost all its power to Crown prerogatives, to Brussels and elsewhere, it is now primarily the place where arguments can be put forward. I have advanced my argument in the hope that the House will listen and, above all, that those in the Church will gain the confidence to demand the right to choose their own leader.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I offer my wholehearted support for the motion.
Today, I wish to raise a subject which I mentioned during business questions last week and hoped to introduce in a private Member's motion tabled last Friday, but it was not reached: the report of the Department of

Trade and Industry inspectors into the House of Fraser takeover. In doing so, I shall refer to the City of London, and I therefore wish to declare my part-time employment with a large firm of accountants there. It is shown in the Register of Members' Interests, but I wish to add that I speak for absolutely no one but myself, as I have always done in the House.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and many other Conservative Members, I feel that, in his noticeably succinct statement of 7 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry failed to explore with sufficient thoroughness all the ramifications of a report which was disturbing in its evidence and damning in its conclusions, the publication of which was long delayed and which has been at the centre of a bitter and long-running public controversy. From the brevity of his statement and what he said in reply to questions, it seems that my right hon. Friend is persuaded that his scope for action is limited.
He said that, as regards misleading the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the legislative stable door has been shut by the Companies Act 1989. However, that is insufficient reason for failing to allow the House a full debate at the earliest opportunity, because too many questions arising from that detailed and highly critical report remain unanswered.
Many hon. Members have expressed their frustration that what the DTI inspectors described as the Fayeds' deceit and lies has not been met with their immediate disqualification as directors or, at the very least, with a bar from directorships of other United Kingdom companies or by the Bank of England's withdrawal of authorised banking status for Harrods bank.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House in this short debate by rehearsing those arguments. Instead, I wish to impress on my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House the fact that the House will also want to know more about the manner in which the DTI behaved over the House of Fraser affair and why, in taking character references on the Fayeds, such reliance was placed on the word of individuals and companies, whose vested interest in the Fayeds' success was plain to see. To ask the Fayeds' own merchant bank advisers, who were to receive an advisory fee of well over £3 million in respect of the House of Fraser take-over, whether they knew of any criticism of the Fayeds was like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.
Those and other questions about the screening of the offeror company and the decision not to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be debated by the House at an early opportunity. I do not believe that the Easter Adjournment should be postponed for that purpose, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will find time shortly after the recess to enable the House to debate the inspectors' report.
If that debate is not held soon, two otherwise avoidable difficulties may arise. First, the failure to examine the DTI's performance in this sorry episode will make it difficult for that Department to retain the respect it normally deserves. I have no doubts about the excellence of the DTI's contribution to government generally, but the lapses which have occurred over the House of Fraser, as well as Barlow Clowes and the sale of Rover to British


Aerospace, need to be explained thoroughly if the DTI, and the regulatory process of which it is a central part, are not to fall into disrepute.
Secondly, the perception that British regulatory standards are beyond question matters crucially to the City of London when it is facing increasing competition from other centres of financial services elsewhere in Europe. The House will be aware of the keen competition between Paris and London for the location of the proposed European bank for reconstruction and development, and of the rapid advances in information technology on the Paris bourse, as that stock exchange seeks to attract business in securities trading which would otherwise be done on the London market.
This is not the time to repeat the arguments for or against the City's big bang, but it is clear that the move to dual capacity, and the need for firms in the City to have a large capital base, have generated a new breed of large financial services groups which lead the way in stockbroking and market making. Changes have also occurred in international banking and bond markets, whereby the leading players in London have increasingly become the huge Japanese and American banks, none of which holds an obvious traditional loyalty to London. Therefore, if our regulatory standards fall into disrepute, much of the financial services business now carried out in London could easily move elsewhere.
To look at the recent downward trend on our surplus invisibles, which I mentioned in the discussion on the autumn statement last November, and at the risk of a recession this year, to which I alluded in the debate on the Queen's Speech during the same month, is to remind oneself that the City of London will need to retain all the worthwhile and profitable business it can find. With that objective in mind, I think that the House would serve the City well if it looked critically at the House of Fraser report soon and demonstrated that lessons can be learned which will reinforce our regulatory standards, and not allow them to become a laughing stock.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak briefly about four issues which concern my constituents, and to argue that it would be helpful to have a shorter Easter recess so that the issues can be discussed more fully.
First, like the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I firmly press on the Government the need to look again at the community charge, or poll tax. I say that not just because it takes little or no account of my constituents' ability to pay it, but because of the philosophy behind it, that local government expenditure is excessive and should be cut. That view seems to be totally rejected by the vast majority of my constituents who know only too well that they need the services provided by local government and do not accept that there is waste.
I was appalled when, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) said that the party was over and local government should cut expenditure. I know from my experience of representing other parts of Stockport that the authority has insufficient resources to meet the needs of my constituents in education, social services and public health, or to protect them adequately.
Therefore, the philosophy of the poll tax, to encourage people to vote for low-spending authorities, seems totally wrong. If the Government were talking about providing value for money, I should be perfectly happy, but value for money does not necessarily mean that money is not spent. Often, spending less means poor quality services. My constituents want good quality education and public health, and effective social services.
The calculations for the poll tax took little account of local communities' needs. I, and fellow Members representing the Tameside part of my constituency, have repeatedly pressed on Ministers the case for better treatment for Tameside when allocating resources.
Secondly, when creating the Denton and Reddish parliamentary constituency, the Boundary Commissioners argued strongly that the one factor which unified my constituency was the Tame valley, which is often referred to in the constituency as the Reddish vale. It does not unify the constituency particularly well in human terms, because people live on either side of it, and crossing from one side to the other for meetings and political activities is often difficult.
Reddish vale is a long open space in my constituency. Some years ago, it was threatened by the possibility that, when Greater Manchester was wound up, the land would have to be sold off. We were grateful to Ministers who allowed the land to be passed to Tameside and Stockport local authorities, to be protected as open space. My constituents are now alarmed by a planning application to turn one side of the valley into a ski slope. They are particularly concerned that someone can come along and put in an application without owning the land in total disregard of the needs of the people in the area. My constituents can do nothing except campaign, protest and try to oppose the planning application.
They are upset because there have been repeated attempts to develop one of the few remaining open spaces, an area where people can go to enjoy fresh air within the constituency. They want to find some way in which the area can be permanently protected as open space. Land can sometimes be sold to the National Trust to obtain such protection, but it causes my constituents grave concern that, time after time, they have to mount campaigns to defend Reddish vale. I merely ask the Government to consider ways in which they could defend it.
Thirdly, I wish to refer to war loans. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made great play in the Budget statement that he wished to encourage a nation of savers. It is high time that the Government considered the problem that faces the many who became savers to help the Government and invested in war loan. I have in mind especially a Mrs. Charlesworth, who is one of my constituents. She is one of about a third of a million who have war loan.
I ask the Government to tell us when they will find some way of allowing savers to redeem their war stock. I realise that the process is complicated and that it goes back a long way, but at a time when the Government claim that they want to encourage savers and wish to pay off part of the national debt, they should be able to find a device that will make it possible for those who want to get rid of their war loan to do so and to recover a sensible amount, rather than the poor returns that they can obtain if they sell their stock on to others.
I understand that the Government do not want to inject money into the economy at present, so it may be extremely difficult to do what I am urging now. As, however, so


many of the provisions set out in the Budget will take effect next year or the year after, it seems that it should be possible for the Government to make an announcement now that, over a period, they will seek ways in which war loan can be redeemed.
Finally, I ask the Government what is happening about nuclear missiles around our shores. Many hon. Members and many others outside this place were pleased when it was announced that international treaties had been signed, with the result that cruise missiles were to go from Molesworth and Greenham Common. Much concern is being caused because it seems that cruise missiles are returning to our shores. I understand that, recently, at least one American submarine was in Portsmouth, and was clearly carrying cruise missiles. It seems that discussions are taking place with a view to cruise missiles being based at Holy Loch. It is possible that they will be on American surface ships that come into Plymouth.
I understand the argument that is advanced by Conservative Members—that, with the changes that are taking place in eastern Europe, we should not rush into an involvement in disarmament until we know what will really happen, and that that will not be possible until a few years have passed. At a time when we might have the opportunity to reduce world tension and to make further progress with the disarmament process, it seems foolish for western nations to be rearming.
Before we adjourn for the Easter recess, there should be a clear statement from the Government on whether it is their policy to encourage the United States to base cruise-launched missiles on submarines and American surface ships which use British ports. It seemed from answers that I received last week from the Secretary of State for Defence that the Government were admitting that that policy was under active discussion. It appears that American ships are carrying cruise-launched missiles and that talks are taking place on whether the American facility at Holy Loch will be converted so that missiles can be serviced in that area.
I hope that, before we adjourn for the Easter recess, it will be possible for the Government to make a statement on whether it is their expectation that sea-launched cruise missiles will be around our shores. Is it right that, instead of having to worry about cruise missiles emerging from Molesworth and Greenham Common on to land, we shall now have to worry about their deployment in the seas around us?
I hope that there will be an opportunity for the Government to make a statement about war loan. I hope also that they will be able to give me an assurance that they are seeking ways of protecting areas such as Reddish vale. Finally, I hope that the Government will produce an alternative to the poll tax.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I urge that the House should not adjourn for the Easter recess because of the deplorable security situation in Northern Ireland. During the past week we have heard, seen or read about further terrorist activities in the Province. Hundreds of homes were destroyed or damaged in Castlederg and in Ballymena when the IRA planted bombs outside the local police station. It is said that one bomb in a car contained

about 1,000 1b of explosives. While people in England and Scotland are fighting in debates about poll tax, we in Northern Ireland are fighting for our lives in the face of an evil and callous campaign waged by Republican terrorists. After 20 years of death, mutilation and destruction, all the decent people of Ulster remain steadfast. They will not capitulate to the IRA as a result of Republican murders or atrocities.
The morale of the people of Northern Ireland has been sorely tested by the Government's failure to maintain a relentless onslaught against the terrorists. As the Irish Republic has been the scene of terrorist activity over the years, it would be natural to assume that the Dublin Government would be unequivocal in their support of the forces of law and order operating in Northern Ireland, but logic does not seem to apply to the island of Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland desire nothing but the friendliest of relations with the people of the Irish Republic. Both peoples share the island of Ireland and, despite the recent legal and political setbacks, I should like one day to see a rapprochement between the people of the two parts of Ireland, with one part consulting the other as a matter of friendly routine. It is surely in the interests of the Irish Republic that it should ensure that it has nothing but the best relations with Northern Ireland.
There is another reason why, I believe, the House should not adjourn for the Easter recess. It, too, affects Northern Ireland. On 13 March, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that the Government had decided to end the electricity tariff subsidy arrangement for the Province. Instead of making a statement in the House and being available for questions from hon. Members on both sides, the right hon. Gentleman made his statement by means of a written answer. Instead of consulting in advance the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, he gave the decision which had been arrived at by the Government in a written answer in response to a question from one of his hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was available to us on a Thursday evening when the matter could not be raised in the House. The decision that he announced was to take effect on 1 April, which is only a few days away. In my opinion, the decision is scandalous.
The Secretary of State revealed the real reason for his action when he stated:
It is clear, moreover, that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales and the decision to privatise NIE also have made the link less appropriate."—[Official Report, 13 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 140.]
The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the linking of Northern Ireland electricity prices with the highest tariff in England, not the lowest and not the average. That linkage, which was established in 1981, meant a considerable reduction in the price of electricity in Ulster. In his written answer on 13 March, the right hon. Gentleman forecast that Northern Ireland electricity charges would increase by about 8 per cent. on average for 1990–91.
There is no guarantee that prices will not soar—at a time when electricity prices in southern Scotland are likely to be kept down to a reasonable level. The increase will place an intolerable burden on domestic users in the Province who already have to endure the highest cost of living in the United Kingdom. I have formed the opinion that the Northern Ireland Office is indifferent to the plight of the Ulster people. An increase would be a harsh blow


not only to domestic users but to industrial consumers in the Province. We must remember that our factories are fighting against all the odds to compete not only with English firms but with those in the European Community as a whole.
On 5 March 1981, the Prime Minister visited Belfast to deal with the crisis created by high electricity charges. She announced that the Government had accepted that the difference in electricity prices between Northern Ireland and England constituted an unreasonable burden on the Northern Ireland community and that electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland should be brought into line with England and "kept there". I emphasise the words "kept there". Nine years later, that assurance has been abandoned by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Let me give some figures for the year ending 31 March which show the contrast between Northern Ireland and the south of Scotland. In Northern Ireland, the standing charge is £41·60 per annum for the current year and the price of electricity is 6·39p per kW. In the south of Scotland, the standing charge is £29·88 and the price per kW is 5·83p. That gap will widen as a result of the deplorable decision, announced by the furtive means of a written answer, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister to examine these issues, which affect the very being of the people of Northern Ireland, and to urge the Secretary of State to review the position.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to draw the House back to the issue of the poll tax. The Government are likely to need time to examine the impact of the poll tax and to amend the arrangements in a number of ways. First, I should make it clear that I accept that the case for replacing the rates is well supported and that rates provided a rather rough justice, aggravated by the reduction in the rate support grant. But the poll tax provides no justice at all.
The Government must address a number of factors as a matter of urgency if we are to achieve even an approximation to justice. First, it is extraordinary that people whose incomes are too low to make them liable to contribute to the central Government Exchequer should nevertheless be forced to pay taxes to their local authority, and there is considerable resentment about that. As the poll tax is basically a flat rate tax and the 20 per cent. rule means that everyone has to pay it, by definition, it falls disproportionately heavily on those with low incomes.
The poll tax is also an incompetent tax. It is inefficient to collect; the mechanism whereby it is to be collected is shambolic and extremely expensive. The facts on that subject may be of interest, and I checked them this afternoon. In Scotland, 2,000 additional local authority staff have had to be recruited to collect the poll tax and the cost of collection has added £50 million a year to the local authority bill. That absurd impost in collection charges alone will have to be borne by poll tax payers.
The tax entails an extremely cumbersome and complicated system of rebates which are allocated in an ad hoc manner. Some people will get a rebate because they happen to have a certain disease, whereas others who would regard themselves as equally ill or even more ill do not qualify. The application of that system is inconsistent.
The default rate will be higher and the speed of collection slower than was the case with rates. Again, I made a point of checking my facts. In Scotland. 400.000 people now face summary warrants, which means that they have paid nothing at all this year. A further 450,000 people are substantially in arrears. The uncollected amount represents 20 per cent. of the total, or £240 million—five days before the end of the financial year. The local authorities estimate that 6 per cent. of the total will never be collected. That means £60 million that they will not secure.
Let us extrapolate from that figure what the position is likely to be in England and Wales in a year's time: 5 million people will have paid nothing whatever towards the poll tax in England and Wales this time next year and a further 4·5 million will be substantially in arrears. In all, nearly 10 million people will have paid nothing at all or will not have paid anything like their full contribution, in many cases because they do not have the money and do not know how they can pay.
We in Scotland remain incredulous that the Secretary of State did not realise that the relief introduced in last week's Budget would be regarded as unfair if equivalent relief were not applied retrospectively to Scotland, which has already suffered the poll tax for a year. I do not need to rehearse that argument but I must emphasise that I believe that it has damaged the Union—the relationship between Scotland and England and between Parliament and the Scottish Office. It has thrown those matters into stark and sharp relief. The irony is that we are talking about a relatively small number of people and about a small amount of money. The Secretary of State for Scotland has now allocated £4 million, but most people believe that he will not need a fraction of that. I am advised that a very small number of people will qualify and that they are likely to receive less than 50p a week. That means that many people will not bother to claim. Would you claim 50p a week in relief, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you had £16,000 in the bank? It is hardly worth the bother. It is not the sum that the people resent, however; it is the principle that was wrong. Ironically, the Government got themselves in an enormous mess over a tiny amount of money because they forgot that Scotland is a year ahead and that people in Scotland therefore view matters somewhat differently.
There is anger throughout the United Kingdom about the introduction of transitional relief. Ministers stated categorically at the Conservative party conference, which was shown live on television, that anyone paying more than £3 a week more than they would pay under the rates system would secure relief. In fact, people will get relief only if the notional amount that the Government said their local authority would levy is £3 a week more than they would pay in rates. The amount that is actually levied does not come into the calculation. It is no good the Government arguing that local authorities are overspending. For the average person who must foot the bill, that failure is a monstrous injustice. The Government are not delivering what Ministers said was on offer, and that has caused considerable resentment.
The only way that the Government will get off the hook is by converting the poll tax in due course to a local income tax and transferring its administration to the Inland Revenue. That would be simple, just, progressive and fair. The arguments advanced by Conservative Members—and, if the truth be known, the underlying argument


behind the Labour party's roof tax—suggest that all those who recognise that the poll tax is unworkable are gravitating towards a local income tax as the only way forward. To the local authorities, that has the additional advantage of buoyancy. It provides some of the continuity of revenue that it requires.
The Government cannot rumble on with this unjust tax, which falls so unfairly. It is high time that it was looked at. This should certainly be done before the recess. I do not think that the Government can assume, as the Prime Minister said, that this time next year the tax will be popular or that the grievances will have disappeared. In this regard, we in Scotland are a year ahead of England and Wales. I am frequently asked by journalists outside the House, "Does it settle down?" All that I can say is that, a year on, the complications in Scotland are greater than those in England and Wales. The anomalies are multiplying by the day. The injustice becomes more and more apparent. The total uselessness of the tax, its unfairness and inefficiency, and the fact that it cannot all be collected bring it home to anybody who is involved that it must go—and the sooner the better.

Mr. David Nicholson: I want to raise three—perhaps three and a half— subjects that the House ought to debate before it rises for the Easter recess. The first is not unadjacent to the subject that was raised by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Many of my constituents tell me that they accept the principle of the community charge but have strong reservations about its implementation and are particularly critical about the amounts that have been levied.
I do no want to go into detail; I will make just two brief points about the matter. First, increasing numbers of constituents will be interested in local government spending and local government efficiency—that is coming across very clearly—but also, by definition, increasing numbers of constituents will be interested in the grant system and the way in which the grant is worked out.
The House may recall that last Wednesday, in the Budget debate, I bowled the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) what may at the time have seemed a remarkably soft ball, which, none the less, had a point behind it. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Labour party was vehemently opposed to a local income tax. My reason for putting the point to him was that the party of the hon. Member for Gordon—the SLD—supports the introduction of a local income tax, as do several of my constituents who are opposed to, or critical of, the community charge. Indeed, one or two of my hon. Friends support the idea of a local income tax. I therefore wondered why the Labour party, which must now have quite high ambitions, was against a local income tax.
I suspect that the reason—this is the point that I put to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East—is that a local income tax would bear very heavily, and almost exclusively, on working families. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friends to record that that is a major defect of the device of a local income tax.
I want to refer to an aspect of industry and an aspect of trade that may be linked. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) may be aware that the shirt-making company Van Heusen, which is located in my constituency, in Taunton, and in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence, in Bridgwater, has announced that it will close its operations in those two towns and will relocate—partly to Derbyshire and partly to Northern Ireland. What is the loss of Taunton and Bridgwater is Northern Ireland's gain, and I do not begrudge my hon. Friend that. I understand that one of the reasons that Van Heusen has given is that regional incentives are available in Northern Ireland. That is something that we have to reckon with, although I must place it on the record that this Government have rolled back regional incentives considerably.
The related matter of the balance of payments did not emerge during the Budget debate, but it is something to which we should be directing attention. The figures suggest that the major deterioration over the past few years is in Britain's deficit with West Germany and with the Netherlands and Denmark, which, in currency and financial terms, are closely linked to West Germany.
It may come as something of a surprise to hon. Members—indeed, we should welcome it—that our deficit with France has not greatly deteriorated. In 1986 it was £1,159 million; by 1989, while the general deficit had deteriorated remarkably, the deficit with France was £1,323 million. In the case of Italy—we know, of course, that Italy is always a strong competitor—there was a deterioration from £1,209 million in 1986 to £2,071 million in 1989. With Spain, which is becoming an important participant on the trading scene in Europe, we had a surplus of £115 million in 1986, and in 1989 that surplus had gone up to £366 million. That is quite a success story, and in the cases of France and Italy the situation is not disastrous—indeed, quite containable.
Over the past three years, the real deterioration has occurred in our trade with West Germany. In 1986, the deficit was £5·5 billion, whereas in 1989 it was nearly £9 billion. That is in addition to the rapid deterioration in the case of the Netherlands and in the case of Denmark. I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend and to Ministers in the Departments concerned with the economy a study of the reason for the development of the deterioration in respect of those countries.
What is it that British industry lacks in competition to Germany? Some days ago, Opposition Members were shouting about the pound having fallen to DM 2·71. That may help us in our export-import competition with West Germany, but this matter deserves consideration before the House rises for the Easter recess.
An aspect of the last main subject to which I want to refer was debated in an Adjournment debate on 21 February initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). I refer to the plight that faces rural post offices and village shops. I am sure that this is a matter in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will be interested. The situation has been exacerbated by the business rates revision and revaluation and the community charge—but especially the business rates.
I have strongly supported the policy of the Government on this matter: the uniform business rate was necessary and desirable, and in my opinion the revaluation was long overdue— there should have been revaluations in 1978 and


in 1983—but this affects rural post offices and village shops, and the Government and the Conservative party must think very carefully about how to proceed.
There is no doubt that the matter concerns a number of people in the more remote rural areas —in my constituency, Exmoor, the Brendon hills and the Black Down hills—but there are even more extensive remote areas in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends —places such as Devon, Cornwall and north Yorkshire.
Older people who have lived all their lives in those areas want to stay there in retirement. We must consider how they will be served when the shops and village post offices have possibly closed down. We might, for example, consider how we can encourage people who have retired from industry with a pension, and who have other occupations, to keep a village shop going. This applies to the post office that serves me and my family.
In these areas, it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a living simply from running a village shop or post office. No doubt these shops will be helped by transitional arrangements and by the phasing of the business valuation, and no doubt they have a right to appeal— a right that they should certainly use. I think that the rather broad-brush revaluations that have taken place have not taken account of what I might describe as the scarcity factor—the fact that not many people want to take over post offices or village shops in remote areas. That might bring temporary relief.
Finally, I come to my half-subject. Letters are beginning to roll in on dog licences and dog registration. I am well aware of the practical arguments and objections to a dog registration scheme. Taunton, has recently appointed one dog warden, but what can one do with so many dogs? One sensible proposal, which I hope will be considered, is to let local authorities keep the proceeds from the fines that they exact from people who break the law. That may go against the general principle operating with penalties and fines for justice, but it would give local authorities, which are responsible, the incentive to appoint dog wardens to pursue those who allow their dogs to stray, often to the severe inconvenience and danger of people and with the resultant increase in filth in the neighbourhood. If this were done, local authorities could choose how to pursue the scheme and how many dog wardens to appoint. That would help to meet the substantial lobbying which hon. Members will meet in the coming weeks from those who want a full-blown dog registration system, about which I have strong reservations.
Those are the subjects that the House should discuss before we rise for the Easter recess.

Mr. David Winnick: The terrible tragedy in South Africa yesterday, the killing of eight protestors and the injuring of hundreds more, took place 30 years and five days after the Sharpeville massacre and is rightly a matter of deep concern to the House. It could be argued that the South African Government have moved to a more flexible position, albeit in a limited way, but the police and security forces in South Africa appear to be out of control and politically sympathetic to the ultra-right parties who have opposed what the South African Government have done recently—the freeing of Nelson Mandela and the unbanning of the African National Congress.
Therefore, I hope that the British Government will make the strongest possible representations to the South African authorities over what occurred yesterday. Moreover, I hope that Conservative Members will agree that this is not the time to remove sanctions. They should not be removed until negotiations between the South African Government and the ANC are well under way.
Understandably, hon. Members on both sides of the House have advanced arguments about the poll tax. The Leader of the House has a cheek to ask for a declaration of loyalty from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when some of the Prime Minister's admirers and supporters—my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) asks where they are, but I am sure that they are around somewhere, even if they are not too keen to show their loyalty at the moment—might argue that he himself has not shown undue support for the Prime Minister. When he was sacked as Foreign Secretary, his actions did not show undue loyalty to the Prime Minister.
The Government would have been in one crisis fewer today if they had taken the advice of the right hon. Member for Henley. I well remember that on Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill in 1987 the right hon. Gentleman said that when he was Secretaryof State for the Environment the poll tax was considered at his request—I see some Conservative Members nodding in agreement—and he recommended to the Cabinet that it was not on.

Mr. Robert Adley: He was right. I voted against it.

Mr. Winnick: I am pleased that some Conservative Members had the courage to do so. They have been proved right.
In the 1979 Parliament I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment which had a Conservative majority. After looking at all the alternatives to the rating system, it came to the conclusion that the poll tax should be rejected. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) may have been in favour of the poll tax, but if so he was the only Conservative Member who was. However, I do not want to embarrass him tonight. He may have changed his mind.

Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have now discovered the meaning of ability to pay? I have the ability to pay and I am entitled to transitional relief.

Mr. Winnick: I hope that the Leader of the House has noted that.
Another senior Conservative Member who warned against the poll tax was the former leader of the party and Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). On Second Reading, he completely rejected the poll tax. He warned that it would thereafter be referred to as the Tory tax. The people of Mid-Staffordshire have taken that on board. They know that it is the Tory tax. It is certainly not the only reason, but it is one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) has a 9,449 majority.
In saying a few words about housing, it would be appropriate to mention my late colleague, Allan Roberts, who, sadly, died last week. Allan never hid his political views before he became active in public life. He was deeply political for, as far as I know, almost all his life, at least from the age of 16 onwards. He was dedicated to


campaigning for adequate housing for all our citizens. I remember a speech that he made at a Labour party conference before he became a Member of Parliament when he said that it was nonsense to divide the community between council tenants and those who owned their own homes. He said that we should try to provide decent housing for all our citizens. Before coming here, Allan was the chairman of Manchester council's housing committee. He will be much missed by the parliamentary Labour party and certainly by his constituents. He was a much-liked and very able Member who served his constituents well. It is tragic that Allan Roberts died in his mid-40s.
We are faced with an appalling housing crisis. The latest figures that I have show a reduction of some 83 per cent.—I emphasise that figure—in public sector starts since the Government took office. In my borough no council dwellings have been built since 1979. What does that mean to the people who simply cannot afford a mortgage; those people who, even in better times of low interest rates and even when they are in employment, do not have sufficient income to take out a mortgage? When they come to my surgeries—many write to me on housing matters—I say that the Government do not expect them to ask for council houses but to obtain a mortgage, and they laugh. They are in no position to do so. I accept that the majority of people will be able to purchase their own home. Why not? I am all in favour of it. But there will always be a sizable minority who, because of their income, must rely on rented accommodation. It is precisely those people who are faced with many problems as a result of the Government's deliberate policy of making it almost impossible for local authorities to build.
Ministers gloat about the number of council houses that have been sold off. They believe that that is the right policy. But if it is right for council tenants to buy the dwellings in which they live—the Tories would say it was almost a human right—what about private tenants? Why should not they have the same right? Of course, the Conservative Government have been totally inconsistent.
If the Government pursue a policy of selling off council dwellings, is it not important that local authorities should have the means to replace the houses that have been sold off? We have always argued that people would not want to buy flats. Someone living in a multi-storey block of flats will not go to the housing office and say, "Give me an application form to buy." It is houses that are sold off, and inevitably it is the better houses.
We should be concerned not only about people who are desperate for housing but about families who live in multi-storey blocks. In my borough many couples with two children live in them and they have to wait for some considerable time to be rehoused because the local authority does not have enough houses to be able to offer them alternative accommodation. People with no children or only one child stand no chance at all. Is that right? Why should people with two children have to wait so long to be rehoused and people with no children stand no chance at all?
The Government have argued that housing associations can do the job if local authorities no longer do so. Figures show that there has been a sharp reduction in the number of dwellings built by housing associations. Since 1978 there

has been a 40 per cent. reduction. Everyone knows the Government's views on local authority housing—they wish to undermine and destabilise it in every way. Therefore, why do they not encourage housing associations by every possible means? Instead there has been a 40 per cent. reduction and large rent increases.
There is no evidence to show that all the Government's talk about a revival in the privately rented sector has come to fruition. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his predecessor have often told us that the private sector can do the job. We have had the Housing Acts. I have tried to obtain information on the private sector in parliamentary questions. All the evidence shows that the revival has not taken place. Where there has been an increase, in the main it has been for people who have the means to buy their own homes and it has been of no assistance to the people about whom I have been talking.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has my hon. Friend noticed that perversely there have been some more properties available for rent, but they are properties that were previously owner-occupied and the owner-occupier has been forced to surrender them back to the building society, or they belong to an estate agent who cannot shift them? Is it not perverse that, by squeezing the owner-occupied end of the market, the Government have managed to flush out more dwellings on to the market for rent, but for the wrong reasons?

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is right. Some of my constituents are in dire straits. They have not been able to keep up their mortgage payments and repossession has been the only course of action. That is tragic, and the Government must bear some responsibility, because it has arisen due to their high interest rate policy.
Council rents have been substantially increased. The retail prices index has increased by about 110 per cent. since the Government came to office, but council rents have gone up by 223 per cent. and housing benefit has been drastically reduced.
I am deply concerned about the cases of some constituents who have written to me about their rents. I shall give two examples because it is all very well to talk in general terms about the drastic reduction in housing benefit, but what does it mean in practice? One of my constituents, a widow who is 74 years old, has a total income of £61·81 a week. That is not a high income. I do not think that any hon. Member would want to have to live on that. Some Conservative Members may consider it to be a suitable sum for a night out with the family. Out of that income, my constituent pays £18 a week in rent.
I wrote to the local authority to confirm that those figures were correct, and to the Secretary of State for Social Security, and he gave me the usual answer. The replies are always the same—sentence after sentence, justifying their policies.
Local authorities no longer have discretion over housing benefit—in ordinary layman's terms, over rebates —as that discretion was taken away in 1988.
I could give many examples, but I shall give only one more. Another constituent—a pensioner—has an income of £54·51 a week, and pays £10 a week in rent. How can Conservative Members defend or justify that? Can they imagine what it must be like trying to make ends meet, to pay for food and essential items, and to have a few pence left to go out for a drink, or to go to the club even if they


do not drink? Out of that income he has to pay £10 in rent not because of a wicked local authority, but as a direct result of Government policy substantially to reduce housing benefit. There can be no possible justification for that policy.
That is one reason why the Government are so deeply unpopular. Other reasons are the poll tax and the National Health Service. Those are some reasons why an ever-increasing number of people throughout the country—not just in Scotland or northern Britain, but throughout the country, and not least the west midlands—recognise that Ministers are out of touch, callous and indifferent to the plight of the people about whom we are so deeply concerned. Conservative Members have been fortunate. They have had an easy run in the last three general elections. They would be foolish to think that that luck will hold for the next general election.

Mr. David Amess: I wish to raise three constituency matters.
First, residents in Langdon Hills, in my constituency, are concerned about the plan to build a new Tesco superstore there. Likewise, residents in Vange are concerned about the new Sainsbury superstore which may be built there. Both areas are new developments. Residents bought their homes out of hard-earned income. They did not expect for one minute that proposals to develop those two stores would be put forward. The stores are both excellent, but they are unwelcome in Langdon Hills and Vange. There are other parts of the constituency which are more suitable for those developments.
While on the subject of planning, may I say that there has also been a proposal to build a shopping complex in the Pitsea Mount area and residents are concerned that they will lose parking facilities for Pitsea market and for Pitsea station. Residents accept that there is a case for some development, but there must be no loss of car parking facilities.
The second issue is the extraordinary proposal by the Eastern Bus Company to run a bus route through a residential area where roads are unsuitable for buses. I do not know where that proposal has come from. The residents have expressed no wish to open up the area to a bus route. I have asked the manager of the Eastern Bus Company to address a local public meeting to put the case.
If the local authority refuses planning permission, and those planning issues go to the Secretary of State for the Environment, I must kindly warn him, through the Leader of the House, that I intend to make a nuisance of myself until the Department of the Environment heeds the wishes of my constituents.
My third point concerns education. Until May last year we had a hung county council in Essex, and it was that hung council that decided to reorganise sixth forms in Basildon and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Those proposals have now been developed by the Conservative-controlled county council, and there has been some local consternation about their clarity. While we are fortunate in having excellent schools in Basildon—my constituency contains seven excellent secondary schools—there is some concern about exactly who wishes to deprive all our schools of sixth forms.
There is a proposal to establish a sixth-form college at Basildon college, which I believe will be successful. The excellent Chalvedon school has made representations to Essex county council and to Education Ministers, and, as a result of its objections being overlooked, it has become the first school in Essex to apply for grant-maintained status. It is balloting parents next week: thus the first school in Essex to have grant-maintained status could be in my constituency. I hope that the Department of Education and Science and Essex county council will be even-handed in their judgment of what local parents may wish to achieve.
I have never heard such nonsense talked about the community charge as I have heard tonight. I support the charge, which I believe is fair and accountable. If anyone is entitled to an opinion, it is the current ratepayers in Basildon, who last year had the highest rates increase in the country, at 52·7 per cent. That was a disgrace: there are no special circumstances in Basildon to make such a rate increase necessary. It is scandalous. The unified business rate in Basildon is excellent news: business rate bills have been cut by 20 per cent., and local businesses are rejoicing at the Government's proposals. I am appalled to learn that Basildon district council is now £154 per head—194 per cent. above the standard spending assessment. It is the No. 1 overspender in the country, and for the past two years it has embarked upon a disgraceful spending expedition. It spent £18 million on a new civic centre for which it did not have the money—the only civic centre in the country that does not contain a council chamber. In future, the councillors will meet on the stage of the Towngate theatre next door. That theatre cost £12 million. Although it did not have a penny to build it, three weeks ago the local socialist council met and decided to pump an extra £600,000 into the theatre to prevent it from going into liquidation. It is all very well for Opposition Members to say that the community charge is not a good idea, but they have not put forward a sensible alternative.
I do not wish to deny Opposition Members their hour of glory and victory; it would be most inept for Conservative Members to be churlish as the Opposition rejoice in the election of their new Member. However, ask the House to consider how, over the next two years. the Opposition can get away without having any policies on any issue. The Conservative party must unite to ensure that the British public are given the opportunity to examine the Opposition's policies closely. The community charge will eventually be seen as fair and accountable.
Basildon has set the scandalous charge of £478. The authority recently released a video that was supposed to celebrate the 40 glorious years of Basildon; instead, it turned out to be a party political broadcast on behalf of the Labour party. I have it on good authority that if elderly people watch the video late at night it gives them nightmares. A community charge of £478 is a disgrace, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to cap the charge in Basildon.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am glad that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is sticking by the poll tax—or community charge, as he wants to call it. His defence of it reminded me of the boy standing on the burning deck. I am afraid that the flames of the poll tax


will consume him in Basildon, as it will consume many of his hon. Friends. The House would lose an admirable champion of ponies, but, as he knows, even in Basildon, ponies do not have the vote.
I ask the Leader of the House for a debate before the Easter recess on African elephants and the Hong Kong ivory stocks. It will not come as a surprise to him that I am raising the issue again, as it is urgent. I have tabled a large number of questions on today's Order Paper related to the Hong Kong ivory stock. I believe that the Government have been grossly misled by the Hong Kong authorities about the level of legal ivory stocks currently held in Hong Kong. In turn, the Government accepted those assurances, failed to check the facts and inadvertently misled the House about the true position. The result is a scandal that further threatens the African elephant population.
When I first began asking questions about this topic last year, when I got the hint that the Government would enter a reservation on Hong Kong's behalf, I was told by Ministers— because they had been told by the Hong Kong authorities—that there were 670 tonnes of legally acquired ivory in Hong Kong. I said that much of that was poached ivory, but that was pooh-poohed by Ministers at the Dispatch Box. However, it is now clear that the Hong Kong authorities lied to the Government—or that they were so inefficient about knowing which of the ivory was legal and which was illegal that their word is hardly worth believing any more.
The Hong Kong authorities said at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species conference last October that there were 670 tonnes of ivory, and that 7 per cent. of it—47 tonnes—had no CITES documents. At the conference, the Hong Kong authorities said:
We know the extent of our stocks because they are subject to strict control.
That was not true then and it is not true now; we now know the truth. Recent answers to my parliamentary questions have revealed that, rather than there being 670 tonnes of legal ivory, there are only 356 tonnes with CITES certification. The Hong Kong authorities now say that 116 tonnes are without CITES documentation: in other words, they do not know where the hell that ivory came from. Yet the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said in a reply to me on 8 March that, although the Hong Kong authorities could not provide a breakdown of the places of origin of that 116 tonnes without certification, there was no evidence that any of it had been illegally acquired.
If there is no CITES documentation to accompany the 116 tonnes, how can anyone say with any assurance that it has not been illegally acquired? Ministers should not come to the Dispatch Box without first checking the facts. They have had plenty of warnings from me, and from other organisations concerned with African elephants, and with animal welfare generally.
If we add up the tonnage—not the original 670 tonnes, but the 356 tonnes and the 116 tonnes without certification—we are still 200 tonnes short of the 670 tonnes originally quoted. We are talking about only 472 tonnes. What has happened to that 200 tonnes of ivory that the Hong Kong authorities said was on the island in June last year which Ministers said was legally acquired, but which has now mysteriously disappeared? I believe that much of that illegal ivory has been smuggled into China, South Korea

and Taiwan. The Government know that a shipment of 12,000 ivory name seals was recently confiscated by Japanese customs. The belief is that that shipment originated in Hong Kong.
By entering that reservation, the Government have allowed ivory to be traded on the world market and have given the ivory trade a massive boost. What is even worse is that poached ivory—ivory is still being poached—will be laundered on the world market. It will come in behind the camouflage of the legal ivory trade that the Government have allowed Hong Kong to maintain for the next six months.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister for Overseas Development whether she believed that the Hong Kong reservation would have an impact on elephant conservation schemes in Africa. Her reply was that no effect whatsoever was expected. However, Dr. Richard Leakey, the director of wildlife and conservation management services in Kenya, has reported that, sadly, there has been an upsurge in poaching in Kenya and that many African elephants have died directly because of the reservation entered by the British Government. That is also true in Tanzania and Malawi.
I warned the Government when they were contemplating the reservation that the result would be that elephants would be slaughtered. The Foreign Secretary dismissed it as a ludicrous suggestion. That is in Hansard. He was wrong and I was right. Usually in politics it gives one satisfaction to say, "I told you so." I assure the deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House that it gives me no satisfaction on this occasion to say, "I told you so." I am not interested in making cheap political capital out of the issue. All that I am interested in is getting some fast political action out of the Government, now that they realise what a tragic error they made.
I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares my concern. We have had words about it in this place and outside. However, I urge him to get the Prime Minister immediately to withdraw the Hong Kong reservation. All the ivory stocks in Hong Kong, legal and illegal, should be destroyed. Legitimate traders would have to be compensated, as would the ivory carvers. But many shifty crooks and nasty people are involved in the worldwide trade in ivory. We should waste no tears on them, just as we waste no tears on drug barons.
I ask the Government carefully to consider the evidence that has been put before them— not by me but by the international organisations—to review their decision and immediately to withdraw the reservation.
The Government must provide far more support for those African Governments who are desperately trying to preserve their remaining elephant stocks. We need massively to step up our aid to them. President Arap Moi has been congratulated in the House more than once on destroying the large stocks of ivory that have been seized from poachers. Kenya can ill afford to see that money going up in smoke, but, as a matter of principle, President Moi said that the ivory must be destroyed.
Those of us who exercise our liberal consciences in this country—rightly so, and that is exactly what I am doing —should be prepared to say that the British taxpayer should put up the money to compensate countries such as Kenya for the finance that they have forgone by burning that ivory. I am sure that many British taxpayers would support such a stand. Kenya, and other African countries, desperately need our support. They need Land Rovers,


wardens and arms. Many of the poachers are armed not with bows and arrows but with high-powered rifles and machine guns and they slaughter elephants indiscriminately.
The Government made a tragic error of both fact and judgment in respect of that reservation. They must realise their mistake and withdraw the reservation before many more of those wonderful African elephants are slaughtered as a result of their decision.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I join in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to Allan Roberts, whose great talents will be very much missed in the House.
I do not believe that the House should rise for the Easter recess without its attention having been drawn once more to the continuing tragedy along the north Wales coast arising from the collapse of the sea wall at Towyn on 26 February and the overtopping of the sea defences at Rhyl and also at Ffynnongroew, where the affected residents have had their cause so effectively championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan).
To give the House a picture of what happened, I cannot do better than quote from the report by the chairman of Clwyd social services committee, Councillor Malcolm King. It says:
Apart from the violent gale, the morning of Monday 26th February, 1990, started out like any other day for people in Towyn and Kinmel Bay. By lunch time houses were ruined, family pets dead and children separated from their parents.
Under the force of unusually high tides whipped up by gale force winds a 200 metre section of the sea wall collapsed allowing the sea to pour through the streets. Within minutes many homes were under 5 ft of sea water with many people, often elderly, frantically trying to make their way to safety with water up to their chins struggling to avoid being swept under.
At 10.30 am the biggest peace time evacuation in Britain swung into action with RAF Search and Rescue helicopters and RNLI inshore rescue boats being used to evacuate the predominantly elderly population from 2,000 houses over about four square miles of flooded land.
Over 5,000 people were evacuated, most of them initially to a variety of emergency rest centres. Two primary schools were badly flooded and whilst parents were being taken to one emergency centre pupils had to be taken to another. Most were reunited the same day, but one seven year old boy was separated from his parents for nearly three days.
I might add at this point that there is unanimous praise for the work of the rescue services —fire, police and ambulance—and of that of the county and district officers at all levels. However, what was thrown into sharp relief was the inadequacy of the evacuation routes in an area where speculative building has manifestly outstripped the availability of many essential services. Councillor King's report continues:
Nearly a month on, 500 people are still in temporary holiday camp accommodation which will have to be vacated before the Easter holiday and a further 150 people are in residential care with little or no prospect of returning to their devastated homes for months. Most of the fully insured have been found temporary accommodation in guest houses or caravans spread along the North Wales coast. Others are staying with relatives. Many, including the elderly, or families with young children, have tried returning to their homes and are camping out in them while the extensive structural and clearing up work goes on around them.
While the sea wall has been repaired and most services are now functioning, serious and widespread damage remains. Because of the time taken to rebuild such a large

section of wall, especially during gales and high tides, most of the houses and bungalows were under sea water for five or six days. The main sewerage pumps broke down early on so that most homes were contaminated with raw sewage. Trees, plants, shrubs and grass have died off over a wide area.
Most bungalows, of which there are many in the area, have had all their contents destroyed by sea water and sewage. Some homes have been written off with extensive structural damage. Most are having their floorboards, plaster and joists ripped out, having been severely contaminated. Many homes in the area have been or are in the process of being gutted.
In common with other disasters, a range of emotional reactions is becoming ever more apparent. Many people have had literally all their possessions destroyed. Much can be replaced, although the accumulated memories of a lifetime, such as letters from a sweetheart who died in the war and old family photos, can never be replaced. There is a widespread feeling of insecurity and a fear of it happening again. Feelings range from anger and frustration to despair and resignation.
Estimates at the moment suggest that 30 to 40 per cent. of the homes have no contents insurance and that possibly 10 to 15 per cent. have no home insurance. With premiums higher than average and incomes lower than average—many people in the area are on pensions or are receiving benefit—the figure of 40 per cent. without contents insurance tallies with the British Insurance Brokers Association's figure of 20 per cent. as the national average without contents insurance.
With probably 1,500 people seriously under-insured, it is estimated that between £6 million and £9 million will be needed to refurbish their homes. The Welsh Office has donated £150,000 to the appeal fund, which we understand is unique for a disaster where no loss of life occurred. The EEC has donated £200,000. Community care grants issued by the DSS are still being restricted to those on income support. Taking into account the Welsh Office and EEC contributions, local government grants and fund raising so far, the appeal fund is not likely to bring in more than £650,000.
Nothing can be done to replace personal possessions lost for ever. We should at least be able to replace those things that can be replaced. With a likely shortfall of £4 million to £7 million in funds needed to get people back into their homes, it seems likely that almost 1,000 people will, in effect, become permanent refugees.
The report by the chairman of the social services committee in no way overstates the position, and it does not deal with the continuous anxiety about whether the repaired sea wall will withstand another such battering. I am of course grateful to the Government for their contribution of £150,000 and I recognise that it is unprecedented for such a grant to be made where there has been no loss of life. But the scale of the Government's response is tragically inadequate to the needs, and the moneys available in the mayor's fund are pitifully small.
People who have lost every stick of furniture and all their kitchen equipment—washing machines and so on —are being given an immediate payment of £200 or £250, with a promise that there may be as much again or perhaps twice as much fairly soon. Honestly, what is the use of that? What will £250 or even £500 buy nowadays? Should they buy second-hand cookers? With a few hundred people looking for them, it will not be long before the price of


those goes through the roof. Indeed, it may not be long before people find themselves buying back cookers which they had thrown out as being unsafe.
There must be an appeal for funds, but public interest is already waning; other, more glamorous causes excite their sympathy. The chances of raising even a quarter of the money needed to meet minimum needs are negligible, and I have not even mentioned the huge fall in the value of their houses, which are now virtually unsaleable.
As I wander around the stricken area—I spend most of my weekends doing that—I see people camping bleakly in caravans on the roads in front of their still uninhabitable houses, or paying a daytime visit to inspect the evidence of continuing deterioration and decay before returning to the provisional accommodation which they will have to call home for many months to come.
The whole economy of the area, which is totally dependent on the holiday trade, has been crippled, at least for the coming year, so it will not be able to contribute effectively to its own recovery. The mood of the people is turning from one of fortitude and philosophy to one of sullen despair. They feel abandoned, hopeless and bitter. I cannot blame them. I am deeply ashamed that we should rise for the Easter recess having done so little to bring them comfort.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The whole House will feel sympathy with the hon. Member for Clywd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and his constituents.
Before coming to the main issue that I wish to raise, I take this opportunity to mention a huge gas explosion that occurred in my constituency this morning. One house was demolished and 10 others were seriously damaged. I offer sympathy to the person who was injured and the relatives and to all those whose homes were damaged. At the same time, I thank the emergency services, including the ambulance men and women, who, as usual, did a superb job. It must have been a traumatic experience for all concerned, and I hope that the injured person will make a speedy recovery.
I wish primarily to raise the major constituency matter of the crisis in my local health authority. My district health authority is faced with a deficit of £1·2 million. The crisis was brought to a head today with the resignation of the district general manager, Mr. Brian Jackson. I understand from a bland press release that there was a meeting between the chair, Mr. Templeton, and the vice-chair, Mr. George, and that Mr. Jackson agreed to go by the end of the week, even though his contract has another two years to run. Apparently he has been paid compensation and has gone "by mutual agreement", according to the press release.
In the past, I have not always been in favour of the attitudes and actions of the district general manager, Mr. Jackson. Indeed, I have opposed many of the cuts over which he has presided. But recently Brian Jackson has been extremely critical of the regional health authority's policy concerning the problems that he has faced in respect of the £1·2 million deficit. He is on record as having said that more cuts would harm the service to patients.
To appreciate the crisis, we must look back at events a few years ago in Calderdale. In 1986–87, £300,000 was cut

from the budget. More than 100 beds covering various services had already gone by that time. In September 1987, the district general manager highlighted the fact that cuts totalling another £500,000 would have to be made, and a programme of action was produced.
By late 1987 it was thought that two principles on which the district health authority had operated would be untenable, set against the need to cash-limit. Those two principles had been that there would be no compulsory redundancies and that everything possible would be done to avoid patient services being harmed. I argue that by that time they already had been harmed.
It was agreed then that it would be impossible to make further cuts without harming patient services, but a number of measures went ahead. A sad measure was the decision to close ward H at Halifax general hospital. That was a specially adapted ward with a skilled and committed staff caring for older people with treatable psychiatric disorders. The patients and staff involved were dispersed and that specialty went. Fielden hospital, a small hospital for mentally handicapped children, closed in December 1987, and there was a curb on recruitment of staff.
Despite all that, the deficit rose to £664,000. In August 1988 a package of cost reductions was discussed and a "damage limitation" approach was attempted. Ward 6, a long stay ward for elderly people in Northowram hospital, was closed and the people were dispersed to other wards. The industrial therapy unit—the only provision in the area for people, mainly men, to learn and practise skills; it was essentially for people with learning difficulties—was closed.
Wards 13 and 14 at Halifax general hospital were closed, reducing the number of general surgical and gynaecological beds, particularly day case beds. The overall reduction in gynaecology beds has led to an increase in the waiting list. At one stage the cervical cytology call scheme had to be slowed down because there were insufficient beds for women requiring further investigation.
They were savage cuts which hurt people, particularly women. The number of maternity beds was reduced, reductions in nurse training were approved, and various planned appointments and developments were postponed or cancelled.
That brings me to 1989, by which time even more measures were needed to meet the deficit. It was clearly stated at that time by the district general manager that obvious savings had long since been achieved, that there was nothing left to trim, and that any additional reductions would mean direct cuts in services. It was clearly said that there was no scope to close wards without damage being caused, so a closure strategy was thought to be ill advised.
Nevertheless, a closure strategy had to be discussed, and we went through a series of exercises in which the district health authority drew up what it called an acute bed strategy. That included closing three wards, one of them a children's ward, closing a whole occupational therapy department and many other damaging cuts.
As a result of huge pressure from consultants, from staff, from the community, from the community health council and from the two local Members of Parliament —myself and the Conservative hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), who both visited the Secretary of


State for Health—the district health authority decided to look again at the package of cuts. It decided to reprieve the children's ward from closure.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health promised to come to Halifax before any more cuts were approved. The authority went back to the drawing board and came up with a new package. A couple of weeks ago, the package was approved by all members of the district health authority. I am bitterly disappointed and disgusted because, having been warned that cuts would seriously harm patients, the district health authority still went ahead. With two or three notable and honourable exceptions, the district health authority voted for the package of cuts.
The new package still includes the closure of the three wards and the closure of the occupational health department, and it also includes a miserly reduction in prescriptions. No prescriptions are to be given to day patients including emergency cases who may, for example, go to the eye ward. At one time they would have been given eye-drops or ointment to take away, but they will now have to go to their own general practitioner for the prescription. In-patients will have only seven-day prescriptions, which will save £150,000.
The cuts will involve an almost total end to infertility treatment and to many health services for women. All funding to the well woman centre has been stopped and it will have difficulty in surviving. The Minister should honour his commitment and visit Halifax before the cuts go ahead. Unfortunately, the district health authority saw fit to ignore that commitment and some of the cuts have been implemented already. I contacted the Minister today. I asked him to come to Halifax immediately and to ignore the fact that the regional health authority might not pass on the community health council's opposition to the cuts. If it does that through a technicality, the Minister might slide out of visiting us, although he promised to do so.
With the resignation of Brian Jackson, a district health authority manager who, in the past, has not worried too much about making cuts, we are in a serious position. If Brian Jackson does not believe that he can go ahead with the cuts, and if he cannot justify them to the people of Calderdale, we are in a crisis. The Minister must come to see for himself the results of the damaging cuts and of the serious underfunding over the years. He needs to talk to nursing staff and to the 60 nurses who trained last year, over half of whom were not offered a job and the rest of whom are on part-time or temporary contracts. He should come to talk to the nurses, to the sisters, to the gynaecologists and to the consultants who say that people will die if the cuts go ahead. Surely, if the Minister comes to Halifax and talks to the people, those cuts will not go ahead.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The deputy Prime Minister has heard some interesting suggestions, and I hope that he will consider them all, especially that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury. The appointment of the archbishop is one of the few matters in this House on which Mr. Jacques Delors does not make the decision, so it should be considered carefully.
I want to mention three points. First, can we delay our recess so the Government can explain why it is now more

difficult than ever to obtain specific information on issues of importance to this country through parliamentary questions? I have been shocked in the past few days about specific changes of policy, which are all recorded in papers I have here. One example is trade with the EEC, which is a matter on which hon. Members ask questions from time to time. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the latest balance of trade with the EEC—and we always have a balance of trade with it. We have seen the ups and the downs, so we believe that it is an important matter.
I tabled a question and I found that, on 19 March, it had unfortunately been transferred to the Treasury, which is most unusual. When the Treasury dealt with the question, it simply referred me to a table called table Al2 of the monthly review of external trade statistics. That table did not give the answers, because it dealt only with visible trade and not with the question that I had asked.
I also asked specific questions on figures published in The Daily Telegraph about an astonishing growth in our deficit in capital payments with the EEC. Again, I was referred by the Treasury to page 39 of the 1989 edition of "United Kingdom Balance of Payments" and was told that a copy was in the Library. I found some difficulty in obtaining it from the Library. I read page 39 and I challenge my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, who is cleverer than I should ever hope to be: if he can read that page and obtain any helpful information from it, I should be surprised. When the country is facing up to important changes, it is important that information should be made available to us. If it is not, there is a danger that hon. Members will suspect that there is a conspiracy to keep information from them and from the public.
Secondly, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that it is vital that, before Britain makes a decision on the exchange rate mechanism, we should have not a debate or a discussion, but a brief White Paper from the Government explaining to the people of Britain what the Government believe will be achieved in positive and negative terms. I have a deep feeling that the general view taken by the established clever people is that the exchange rate mechanism is a good thing; the same happened with membership of the EEC.
I can remember the days when we were told that British cars would go right across Europe, that jobs would increase and pensions would soar. There was a feeling of hope and optimism that, if we joined the club, we should gain all the great advantages of membership of that club. I find it worrying that, whenever Ministers are asked about such issues, we seem to have no information. We hear some of the Euro-fanatics say that ERM is good because it is European and many others say that it will bring more stability, lower interest rates and better trade.
I believe that all the evidence points in almost exactly the opposite direction. I hope that the Government accept that joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system is a big step, and is important to the powers of the House of Commons and to the Government. It would be terrible if we simply slipped into the proposal without the Government explaining to the people of Britain or to the House of Commons what might be achieved by such a measure. It would be unfortunate if, at a time when things in the economy seemed to be becoming a bit difficult, we were to join the ERM simply in the hope that it would make things better.


Thirdly, will the Government give some attention to the fact that agriculture in this country and in the rest of Europe is doing great damage to the environment and, most importantly, to the Third world? I have always been depressed to sit here week after week and year after year hearing how new policies in the farm plan are changing the whole agricultural scene. We hear that, for that reason, we shall bring production and consumption more into balance. We have heard all the proposals. We have had restrictions of production through quotas, stabilisers, transfers and everything under the sun, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must be aware that in 1990, although we spent a fortune on eliminating virtually all the surpluses, we are spending £9 billion simply on dumping and destroying food.
Apart from the fact that it is a shameful misuse of public funds, it is terrible to do this to the Third world. It is the people there who suffer the poverty, the hunger and the agony and who have to change their countries most. So long as we are spending this vast sum—I believe that it will be an ever-increasing sum under current policies—simply on dumping food at crazily low prices, we are not being fair to the world and certainly not to the people of the Third world.
I hope that the time will come when issues such as this will be faced and we will not just indulge in "kidology", as we seem to, week after week and year after year. Perhaps the most depressing thing in the House of Commons is to hear the Ministers of Agriculture announce that, because of new measures and new initiatives, problems will be resolved. I believe that, at the end of the day, we need a simple acceptance that there is no way in which the common agricultural policy can be reformed and the problems that we are inflicting on the world solved unless we scrap the CAP and adopt something wholly different and a great deal more in the public interest.
If the Government will give thought to the provision of information on these three issues, I am sure that I can join with the whole House in wishing the Leader of the House and deputy Prime Minister a very happy and healthy Easter break, in which he enjoys sunshine and all the things that go with the good life that he certainly deserves.

Mr. Roland Boyes: A casual visitor to this palace, starting at St. Stephen's entrance and walking through the building, would notice that it resembles a superb art gallery; that there are many examples of brilliant workmanship, including the statues in the Central Lobby and the Members Lobby, as well as great paintings, good cartoons and many prints of different kinds. But any casual visitor would also notice that one thing is missing: there is not a single photograph.
The Leader of the House is trying to intimate to me that there is an odd print or two somewhere but, as I develop my speech, he will realise that the absence of photographs, particularly as we have just reached the 150th year of photography, is very puzzling. Many other Parliaments and institutions contain photographs of historical record, but in this Parliament we have missed great opportunities to display photographs.
I shall be meeting one of the Treasury Ministers, the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), to discuss

with him the Central Office of Information and its destruction of many photographs. There has been a ridiculous shredding of pictures that could be of historical importance. I was speaking to an official about pictures in Ministers' offices and I challenged him on the point that there were no photographs from the central bank of pictures. The official said that I was completely wrong, because there are 12 photographs, all of Dartmoor. That said it all to me. It is really ludicrous that, in all the big offices from which Ministers operate, there are only 12 photographs.
My main plea tonight—I have corresponded regularly with the deputy Prime Minister on the matter—concerns still photographs and the fact that they cannot be taken in the Chamber. We are surrounded at the moment by eight television cameras, which during the day are beaming live into millions of homes. I understand that, during Prime Minister's questions, at least 7 million people tune in. Yet one cannot take a simple still photograph in this place. I just cannot understand that. I have pleaded in letters to the deputy Prime Minister and tabled early-day motions, but so far we ain't made 'alf an inch of progress. However, I am hoping that, having been given this opportunity to speak to the deputy Prime Minister directly, I may get some satisfaction.
One of the silly things about it—this will surprise many hon. Members—is that there is no way that one can raise the subject of photography except on the Adjournment of the House, because, according to the explanation that I was given, there is no ministerial responsibility. So, while we want photographs, there is no opportunity to ask for them except on an occasion such as this, and I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to make these few remarks.
I was a Member of the European Parliament, and still photography was allowed, as one of my former colleagues, the PPS to the deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), knows. It did not cause any problems at all. There were television cameras, but not on the same scale as here. It was possible, for example, to request a photograph for a local paper while a Member was speaking. I would not have been likely to do so, but it was possible. There were photographs of the founding fathers of the European Community. I am not advocating this, but photographers could walk freely in the chamber of the European Parliament.

Mr. Don Dixon: I am rather worried about that.

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend says that he is worried about that, but if he will let me develop the subject a little further, he will find that I have a much more practical solution. Hon. Members make speeches here but, surprisingly, every Member loves to have his or her photograph in a newspaper. We all know that it is better to have a very small photograph in a newspaper than a whole page of text. Here is an opportunity for all of us —even my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, whom I greatly respect, and who is not too sure about the situation.
How can we solve the problem of people walking around? The problem here is the same as the problem that arose over snooker, when it was essential that there be no intrusion or noise by photographers. They invented a screen system and the pictures of snooker are taken from


behind the screen, so the game is not affected in any way. Except for Leicas, cameras make a noise, especially with the whirring of motor drives, but all that can be cut out. So all that would be needed would be two or three locations in the Galleries of this place where still photographers could operate.
At the moment, pictures are being taken from the television screen and we are told that they will get better. On the first occasion that we had television cameras in this place, every newspaper looked at the pictures and, to say the least, found them pathetic, and they are not much better now. As long as pictures are not very good, they will not be published in the newspapers.
The other problem with television is the restriction of the shape of the screen. Taking pictures from television will never result in the interesting pictures that the newspapers ought to be publishing. The newspapers have tremendously improved the techniques for displaying photographs. The Independent led the way and the other papers followed, but we are not taking advantage of that situation.
Photographs can be taken from the Galleries on the official opening of Parliament and that has been allowed for many years. But I understand—I hope that the deputy Prime Minister will clarify the situation in winding up—that there is a move now to stop even that. What kind of world do we live in when every hon. Member in this Chamber prays for a photograph in a newspaper, yet photographs cannot be taken on the most important occasion in Parliament's life—the official opening, when the programme for Parliament is set out in this Chamber?
I have been carrying out a project: I have taken photographs of about 100 Members in the building or in its surrounds, but the restrictions are extremely severe even for a Member of Parliament. I am repeating a project carried out by a Conservative Member, Sir Benjamin Stone, in the last century. According to his biography, he worked under terrible conditions. He had to ask a plethora of people where he could take photograhs.
I work under similar conditions. I have consulted Mr. Speaker, the Serjeant at Arms, the security people and police inspectors, yet the restrictions on taking photographs make photography difficult, even for a Member. In some locations, photographs may be taken before half past 9 in the norning, but if it is after half past 9, one cannot take pictures. Around 12 o'clock, one may take photographs for half an hour on the Terrace, but by 1 o'clock perhaps one cannot.
The silliest restriction is that pictures may not be taken in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow might say that he did not want his picture taken, but I cannot even take a photograph in the Chamber when it is empty. There cannot be a dafter restriction; 7 million people can watch proceedings televised by eight cameras, yet I am not allowed to take a picture of an empty Chamber.

Mr. Dixon: Why would my hon. Friend want to take a picture of an empty Chamber?

Mr. Boyes: That is an important philosophical question. It is beyond the realms of photography, and I will have a long discussion with my hon. Friend about it afterwards.
My hon. Friend, who may be an expert on these matters, knows that we could have a committee or some

other way of controlling still photography. We do not seem to have much control over what is happening with television. The experiment started just with people's heads and torsos being shown, but now there are wider angle shots. I am in favour of that. I want the people whom I represent in the north-east, who get little opportunity to come to London, to see what Parliament is like—the good and the bad. We have an obligation to allow our constituents to see what is happening. Television may use wide-angle cameras, but let us have still photographs as well. That is all I ask.
I know that the deputy Prime Minister is sympathetic. I am not saying that he is supportive, but he has written me sympathetic letters on the matter. Perhaps the reactionaries on the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House, of which he is Chairman, are holding matters back, but I ask for some common sense. If people are enjoying the televised proceedings, let us have still photographs, taken by professionals from behind screens. Everyone in Parliament would benefit.

Mr. David Porter: A few minutes ago the House heard a moving account from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) of the Towyn tragedy. It illustrates what I want to say. With winter behind us, I hope, I do not think that the House should adjourn for Easter without considering the coasts of Britain and without giving thanks in some cases. By the coasts, I mean the whole United Kingdom sea defence, coastal defence, coast protection and flood protection. Whatever name we give it, it is often all that stands between thousands of people, acres of land and millions of pounds' worth of property and total, irreversible oblivion under the sea.
When I say that we should give thanks, I mean that East Anglia should give thanks because the damage done to Towyn on 27 February, and to other parts of Britain in January and February, was not visited on East Anglia to the same degree, although it was bad enough. That was only because the wind was blowing in a particular direction. Had there been a different wind direction, half East Anglia would have gone. What I referred to in my first speech in the House in June 1987 would have come nearer. Then I said that unless we addressed the problem, the seaside resort of Birmingham would be a reality by the middle of the next century. As a sea-loving nation, we have to temper that love with respect and at times with fear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), in a magnificent Adjournment speech only last Wednesday, spoke knowledgeably about the urgency of the problem and the need for a national solution. He pointed out that responsibility is shared by 240 different authorities and that 10 new regional coastal groups have not yet met. He cited 10 major Acts stretching over the last 120 years. He spoke of the spectre of global warming leading to rising sea levels and changing weather patterns, with no certainty of the amounts and levels involved. He credited the diverse and many research projects under way at universities and at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He estimated the costs to threatened land and property at £75 billion. He could not begin to estimate the amount of human life under threat. He stressed the need for more research into all aspects. He summarised the


needs as co-ordination, research, urgent action and cash. He identified the overwhelming need for a single, responsible body to co-ordinate what is happening.
I support my hon. Friend's call and reinforce it. He recognised in that debate the major works in East Anglia which followed the disastrous floods in 1953. Not only is that work nearing the end of its life expectancy, but it was never total work. If we improve a piece of sea wall here, or put a new groyne in there, the effect is apparent further down the coast.
It is absurd that we do not have a national body in action on the job. The National Rivers Authority has general supervision of sea defences. Why is it not expanded and beefed up to do the job? The sea recognises no local authority boundaries. The wind does not give a toss whether it is an NRA-supervised scheme or a MAFF-approved scheme. The tide sweeps all before it—house, field and human being.
In my constituency there is a tiny settlement called Easton Bavents. It was once bigger but for some years about 12 ft a year have been sliding off the sand cliffs into the North sea. The rate advanced during the recent winter. At the weekend, when I last saw it, the cliff edge was as close to the nearest occupied dwelling as I am to the Front Bench on this side of the House. A modest scheme could be carried out, using blocks rather than a whole sea wall. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food my plea that, once the scheme hits his desk, it will be considered in hours, not months, as is normal. If it is not, Easton Bavents will not exist this time next year. If Easton Bavents goes, half of Southwold will go as well, and probably most of Reydon and all the surrounding farmland and marshland. Indeed, it was only luck in the wind direction recently which stopped the collapse of the weak north wall of Southwold harbour.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to use his best endeavours to ensure that there are no further delays in the Southwold harbour scheme, particularly as the other half of the harbour is the boundary of his constituency. We cannot go on relying on mild winters and luck. Corton cliffs, Lowestoft north and south beaches, Covehithe and Kessingland—in fact, the whole of the coastline of Waveney—are as much at risk as the rest of Suffolk and all of Norfolk.
It is not a problem for the local councils alone to tackle and fund, they must remain the first line of defence and proposal, but sea defence is a national issue which needs a national approach; hence my request for a one-stop, buck-stop agency.
Having said that, I readily acknowledge the progress that has been made. We had the announcement that £161 million will be spent on coastal defence over the next three years. East Anglia will get the lion's share of that money. That is very necessary and welcome, too, although some estimates are that £5 billion would not begin to touch the problem. The maximum grant to local authorities will be raised from 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. Again, that is very necessary and welcome, but I wonder whether the 25 per cent. which remains as a local function is still out of proportion when we are talking about telephone number size amounts in sea defence spending.
We need to consider a new dimension in coast protection. Are the groynes and the hard engineering, Victorian type sea walls the answer? Are there not other answers? Is there not a need for a national agency to consider the construction of ramps under the sea, further out, not to control the sea but to enable us to live with it? We might have management control of sea and land erosion by a soft engineering approach. Is not that what we want?
Erosion in one area leaves a build-up somewhere else. We need to stabilise natural beaches and to build submerged barriers, to change the rhythm of the waves. We need to take a strategic view. I do not claim that this phrase is original, but we need a national management agency for Britain's coasts to ascertain what should be saveable and what is saveable. Only a national view will do.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: The motion proposes that we should have a break at Easter and for the spring May day bank holiday. As a life-long trade unionist, I shall not object to that.
It is a long time since the Adjournment of the House was considered against a political background as extraordinary as the present one. It must be a long time since a Government have looked forward to a recess with such relish and relief as this Government. They must be revelling in the prospect of having a few days when they do not have to come to the House to answer for the poll tax, the Health Service and the numerous other issues that have been raised. I imagine that the Prime Minister must be tremendously relieved that for a couple of Tuesdays and Thursdays she does not have to come here in front of 7 million people, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), to put up performances such as her recent ones—

Mr. David Nicholson: And my right hon. Friend wins every Question Time.

Mr. Grocott: I shall come to the little matter of winning in a moment.
We have known for a long time the opinion poll figures about the Government's collapsing authority and this weekend's figures show the Government being 18, 23, 27 or 28 per cent. behind us, with the gap increasing. It will be intriguing to see how the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, cope with electoral defeat. The Government and the Prime Minister have had a charmed life for so long, but the test comes when one is behind in the polls. Anyone can lead a political party when things are going well. The test is coming, and we shall have to see how the Government and the Prime Minister stand up to it.
I do not expect the House to take too much notice of opinion polls because we all know that they come and go. I prefer the real polls, such as the one that was held last Thursday in Mid-Staffordshire. I enormously enjoyed the three weeks' campaign there. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that an outstanding Member of Parliament has been introduced to the House. I have worked closely with her. I must also record the deeply sour and churlish way in which the Government prevented the admission to the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) until late this afternoon.


That shows what bad losers they can be. My hon. Friend was required to wait around for two and a half hours until she could be introduced.
However, the sourness of the loser cannot detract from the significance of the victory. Like my hon. Friends, I like episodes such as this and we shall relish it. It would be difficult to overstate the significance of the by-election. I know that Conservative Members love hearing quoted pieces from that good newspaper, The Guardian, which reported:
The Mid-Staffordshire byelection was an unqualified triumph for Labour, one of the greatest in the whole of the party's history …
The vital statistics of Labour's success can be swiftly summarised. This was the biggest swing in their favour in any byelection since March 1935 …
The turnout was high, not far short of general election proportions … the increase in Labour support, by far the best of the post-war years".
I could go on—

Mr. John Greenway: Having sat through the debate since quarter past five—I appreciate the pressure on time, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am in the House as proof positive that there is life after a by-election. What I have just been listening to is precisely what was said throughout the length and breadth of Britain after the defeat of the Conservative party in the Ryedale by-election at which a 16,000 Conservative majority was overturned. I am glad to say that the Conservative party now has a majority of nearly 10,000.

Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman must draw whatever consolation he can during his remaining time in the House. That applies also to one or two of his hon. Friends. Conservative Members should be clear about the fact that, after the Mid-Staffordshire by-election, no seat is safe.
The only persistent theme that the Conservative party managed to string together in the by-election campaign was its constant criticism of the style of the Labour party's campaign. I am not churlish or sour and I am quite prepared to say in this public place that I have no criticisms whatsoever of the way in which the Conservative party conducted its campaign. I hope that the Conservatives have many more campaigns similar to it. We hope and expect that there will be many similar results.

Mr. David Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention that Front-Bench speakers should attempt to reply to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The motion lends itself to a wide debate.

Mr. Grocott: I shall not disappoint the hon. Gentleman. A recurring theme in the by-election—and in today's debate, wide-ranging though it has been—has been the poll tax. I do not doubt for a moment that the poll tax was one of the factors that led to our tremendous success, but I should like to say a few words about why it was considered so important by so many people. Surprisingly, that issue did not recur simply because people have to pay more. Characteristic of the views that were expressed by many of the people on whose doors I knocked during the campaign was that, of the few people who will not be worse off as a result of the poll tax, many could see the manifest injustice of that system and were not prepared to vote for it. That may be difficult for many Conservative Members to understand, but it is undoubtedly true.

Implicit in all that is the fact that many people object to the style and methods of the Government who introduced the poll tax.
I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) complain that the Labour party is not spelling out its alternatives in enough detail. I refer him to the Conservative manifesto of 1987, which had a total of six lines on local government finance. I do not know what our next manifesto will be like, but I am sure that we shall be able to manage more than six lines on local government finance and to be a little more incisive and profound than stating simply:
We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer Community Charge.
That is not the most detailed analysis of local government finance that I have ever seen.
Like many of my hon. Friends, many Conservative Members have metioned the poll tax in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to the crucial fact that it is not related to the needs of local areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) also emphasised the injustice of the poll tax. Like other hon. Members, I associate myself with the tribute paid to Allan Roberts by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. I know that it is echoed by many hon. Members.
The Mid-Staffordshire by-election was not only about the poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to another issue repeatedly raised in the by-election—the Health Service. We were criticised many times during the by-election, and sometimes we were criticised for our candidate's campaign slogan, which was, "Vote for what you value." Many Conservatives and the brighter intellectual members of the press told us that that was not good enough and that "Vote for what you value" did not mean anything. It may not mean much to Conservative Members or to some newspaper correspondents, but it certainly meant a lot to the people of Mid-Staffordshire. They knew what they were voting for and what they valued. Conservative Members need not take my word for this—they can look at the ITN exit poll —but one of the things that the people of Mid-Staffordshire valued was the principle upon which the Health Service was founded. They also valued the principles behind the welfare state. They valued a Government who know the meaning of words such as "tolerance" and who believe in a fair system of taxation. They valued a Government who would listen when people criticised. They supported our values and rejected the values of Thatcherism. I use the word "Thatcherism" advisedly. I do not simply use the name of the Prime Minister but refer to the set of values with which she is associated.
In the next few months or even the next year pressure may be brought to bear on the Prime Minister and some moving statement may come from Downing street that she thinks it right to start spending more time with her family. That may be the reason for her going, but it is not a sufficient commentary on her terms of office or the way in which this experiment on our people should be closed. Everyone who has been associated with the Government—every Minister and every hon. Member who has gone through the Lobby for the Government—is accountable for what has been done in their name. It cannot be put down entirely to the Prime Minister; she


cannot be held solely culpable. Those who have been associated with the Government cannot simply make a sacrifice of her and wipe the slate clean. The people of Mid-Staffordshire did not accept that and nor will the people of the rest of the country.
It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the by-election. It is increasingly fashionable for people to believe that our electoral system is not the best in the world. I am an unashamed supporter of the first-past-the-post system. I hope that it will long remain. One of its many benefits which is so often overlooked is that it provides for the priceless safety valve of by-elections. Many of the alternatives put forward do not offer a sensible way in which by-elections could take place. We all know about historic by-elections that have taken place over the years. No doubt the Mid-Staffordshire by-election will be rated as historic. If that safety valve and the capacity of people to respond in a particular area at a particular time to the built-up frustrations of the country—which is what happened in Mid-Staffordshire—did not exist we would lose something precious in our electoral system.
In replying to the debate, it would be churlish of me not to mention that some Conservative Members who have spoken find the poll tax a particularly objectionable form of taxation. My neighbour the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) has spelt out his views plainly enough on that. Speeches to that effect were made by other Conservative Members. But still the Government are not listening, and still the Government will tinker.
It would also be churlish of me not to mention specific issues raised by several of my hon. Friends who have now left the Chamber. One such issue was that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who made a characteristically persuasive case for removing one area of patronage—the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury—from the hands of the Prime Minister. But my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), as ever, put forward an overwhelming and persuasive case, which was listened to by every hon. Member in the Chamber. Again, he is a person whom I would much rather have on my side than against me. If any cause in the world is looking for a champion, it could do worse than get hold of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West.
I return to the main theme of my speech, which is the state of politics in Britain as we head for the Easter Adjournment. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the enthusiasm of Labour Members for current political events. We understand the wholehearted desire of the Government to remove themselves from detailed scrutiny and examination, albeit for the short Easter Adjournment. However, they can dodge and weave from this crisis to that, but they must face the local elections in May and they will have other electoral tests to surmount. They may struggle on for another year, 18 months or two years, but sooner or later they must face a test greater than that of Mid-Staffordshire—the test of the whole country. For Labour Members, the sooner that test comes, the better.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I begin by joining several hon. Members who have spoken in reaffirming our sadness at the death of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). In an equally uncontentious fashion, I extend congratulations to the new hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal). There was no sourness or obstructiveness in the way in which her admission to the House was arranged. The same has happened on other occasions. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) intervened to say that he arrived at a much later hour in the afternoon after his equally important victory at Ashfield. It is important to remember that just as opinion poll figures come and go, so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, do by-election victors. As I recollect, the majority at Ashfield was 21,000. It was swept away in an astonishing recount at an early hour in the morning. But Ashfield is not now a Conservative seat. Nor will Mid-Staffordshire be a Labour seat when the next election comes.
We are more than ready to abide by the advice of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that we are accountable to the nation. We shall, indeed, account for our record when the time comes. We shall do so with success, as we have done three times already.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Leader of the House give way on a matter of procedure?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he is an inveterate interrupter. I have only 15 minutes to reply.
The community charge featured in the speeches of Conservative and Opposition Members. The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made sweeping and dismissive speeches about it and I shall say no more about them. However, I wish to respond to what the hon. Member for Walsall, North said about South Africa. He was right to draw attention to the tragic events at Sebokeng on Monday. We condemn violence from whatever source. Those events underline the urgent need for parties in South Africa to begin direct talks as soon as possible.
As well as talking about sea-launched cruise missiles and urban ski-slopes, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the position of war loans. I have to offer him the familiar reply on that. Were the Government to respond to his plea, the bulk of the money would simply provide windfall gains for those who purchased the stock after it had already fallen sharply in price. It would cost a great deal and set an unmanageable precedent.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) also spoke about the community charge. He was good enough at least to acknowledge forcefully the overwhelming case against the rating system. He commended a local income tax, which would be a most insensitive vehicle to manage. It has been dismissed for that reason.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) made some important points about planning and education. He also gave a robust defence of the principles and practice of the community charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) also made some interesting observations about it. He spoke about a dog registration system, which is not something for which I


have great enthusiasm. It would cost about £20 million and would give rise to more complications than the collection of vehicle excise duty for rather smaller returns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) offered observations on the community charge from their great experience. I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend back from his desert island. Sadly, he does not come back to his antique home of Oswestry, which sounds much more distinguished than Shropshire, North.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, who has apologised for his absence, offered the simple proposition of transferring the costs of education from local to central Government. I say simple because it would be accompanied by arithmetical changes that would make it quite valueless as a transaction. It would erode the effectiveness of local government education and would transfer a burden of some £15 billion from the ratepayer to the Exchequer. That seems a somewhat extravagant claim even for my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and even with the alleged labour burden of £3 billion. It is simply a book-keeping transaction unrelated to the matter.
I have some sympathy with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North about the need to bring calm and reasoned judgment to bear in a speedy fashion or, in the words of the American Supreme Court, to approach the matter with "all deliberate speed". My right hon. Friend drew attention to the need to consider the ability to pay. When my right hon. Friend and I sat alongside each other in the Treasury some years ago even his brightest ideas, as well as mine, had to stand the test of affordability. The most compassionate approach that my right hon. Friend commends would still need to be tested against how much could be afforded from the central Exchequer.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) gave us a fascinating insight into the questions that arise out of the prospective appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury and the movement towards increasing self-government for the Anglican Church. It was marvellous to behold that radical revolutionary looking back gently on the 450 years of progress in the right direction. He paid tribute to his heroes, Benn and Bradlaugh, who were figures of some distinction. The right hon. Gentleman spoke like an antique churchman as he offered us phrases such as, "I was brought up to believe this" and, "The time will come". His speech was an insight into the reverential, ecclesiastical style that has increasingly come to characterise the right hon. Gentleman. He emphasises that the Labour party is now becoming an extremely broad church.
I was interested in the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle).

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Forgive me, but not even for my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle referred to his anxieties about the reaction of my right hon. Friends to the report on the House of Fraser case. I understand his argument and he is not alone in making it, but, fortunately, that case has many unique features. In

many respects the law and practice has altered since that case surfaced. I doubt whether it will ever be repeated, and we should be careful not to draw too many conclusions from it.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) returned with characteristic vigour to the case that he makes effectively and continually on behalf of the African elephant and the part played by the Hong Kong ivory stock in the matter. The issues involved must be balanced carefully against each other. The Hong Kong Government are in the process of enacting legislation to ensure that the CITES ban is enforced when our reservation is withdrawn on 18 July this year. The legislative process is on schedule, but, in the meantime, the Hong Kong Government will continue to enforce strict licensing and monitoring arrangements to prevent any illegal trading in ivory. The 116 tonnes of ivory without documentation to which the hon. Gentleman referred will not be allowed to be exported.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), in what has already been described as a moving intervention, described the continued hardship faced by his constituents following the tragic events on the coastline of his constituency. He was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), who drew attention to the extent to which such events should be regarded as a national issue and who called for a different approach to their management. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made an important speech about this not long ago. I know that one of the answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West lies in the uneasy balance between insured and non-insured risks and, to that extent, there must be a limit to what the Exchequer can do. My hon. Friends' speeches underline the need for me to draw my right hon. Friends' attention to the need to examine on a more general basis the way in which we respond to such tragedies.
The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) rehearsed on the Floor of the House a conversation that we have had on a number of occasions on his photographic lust, which I share with him to some extent. The arrangements now made provide for what are known in the jargon of the trade as "freeze frames" from the eight television cameras to be made available. In one way or another, one or other of those cameras is, at this very moment, taking a sequence of potentially freezable frames of him and his elegant posture. We must leave the matter at that for now, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will not leave it there and we shall hear about it again.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) drew attention to a tragedy that occurred in her constituency today and the House sympathises with her in that respect. Obviously I cannot respond now to her general case about the Health Service, save to remind her that all considerations of the availability of resources for her constituency or mine must take into account the fact that there has been a 39 per cent. increase in real terms in the total resources going to the NHS. The torrent of demand always rises inexorably ahead of those resources, but somehow we must devise methods to balance both sides of the equation and that will always be difficult.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) characteristically offered me three or four provocative questions before he wished me a happy holiday—I reciprocate that wish to him. I agree with my


hon. Friend about the elusive quality of Treasury answers to some statistical questions. I have had some difficulty understanding them when affirming them myself and we must try to do better. As to membership of the exchange rate mechanism, when the time comes the case will be made plainly; of that I have no doubt.
My hon Friend's general question, to which he returns frequently, related to the damaging impact of the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend is right to direct attention to the continually damaging impact of surplus agricultural production generated by artificial means. It is not just the CAP that does that; the United States and Japan create massive surpluses. If my hon. Friend looks at the OECD recommendations in relation to the producer-subsidy equivalent, he will note that Japan is a more extravagant subsidiser of agricultural protectionism than other countries. We do not embark upon such things out of sheer folly, but it is a course that does not commend itself to someone who has had the good fortune to represent the Gorbals and Southend. To others who represent constituencies with a slightly larger agricultural component the health of the countryside is important. It is extremely difficult to find methods of sustaining it, but let my hon Friend sustain the onslaught of criticism. The real question, however, is to work out how on earth one tackles the problem.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The free market.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is part of it, but it is not the complete answer. I cannot indulge in a complete solution now.
My hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and for Taunton also drew attention to the trade gap. In all the shifting statistics about the impact of membership of the Community on our trading performance the most important thing is the extent to which our industrial performance, inside or outside the Community, still falls short of what we would like. There has been a dramatic improvement, but we still suffer from widespread deficiencies in our trading performance compared with other major performers around the world. Our world

market penetration is one half or a third of that of France or Germany. We must do better—we are doing better and we shall continue to do so.
The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised four issues. The hon. Member for North Down asked about electricity pricing. No subsidy has been necessary since 1986 and it appeared to my right hon. Friend inappropriate to tie the price of a public utility, Northern Ireland Electricity, to that of the privatised industry on the mainland. I believe that that is a reasonable case. The first point of the hon. Member for Belfast, South provokes the unsurprising answer from me that my right hon. Friend is ready and willing at any time to talk to him and his colleagues about procedures for handling legislation and to consider any constructive proposals. The hon. Gentleman's penultimate point related to the impact of the McGimpsey case on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The constitutionality of that agreement has been upheld in the Irish courts. The status of Northern Ireland in international law is clear: it is part of the United Kingdom. In article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, both Governments affirmed that the status of Northern Ireland would not be changed unless a majority of people living there wished it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, recently said in a debate, willingness to contemplate change carries with it de facto recognition of the position from which change might occur. The declaration on status in the Anglo-Irish Agreement is simply aligned with reality, which is that the status of Northern Ireland is British.
I echo the entirely justified concentration of the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for North Down on the recent vicious attacks by terrorists in Ballymena and Castlederg. Once again, we reaffirm that such attacks will not deflect the Government or the security forces from their absolute resolve to defeat terrorism from whichever side of the Northern Ireland community it comes. That is the position of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 5th April, do adjourn until Wednesday 18th April and, at its rising on Friday 4th May, do adjourn till Tuesday 8th May.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Orders of the Day — Light Railways

Mr. Robert Hayward: It gives me great pleasure to be called first to speak in the Consolidated Fund debate because it gives me the opportunity to speak at 8.30 pm, whereas a large number of my colleagues will have to speak in the early hours of the morning.
I raise the subject of the operation of metro systems because it is appropriate to do so. There is a growing interest in their operation. It is fair to speculate that had we had this debate 10 years ago, its mover would almost certainly have been my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and nobody else would have been interested in the subject because they would have thought that it was of a past era. The debate would probably not have lasted long.
Now we already have approval for a Bill for a light railway system to run through Mr. Speaker's constituency. There are proposals, at various stages, before this and the other House, for light railway systems in Manchester, Sheffield, the midlands, Bristol and the south, around Southampton and in Croydon. Only this afternoon, in his statement on London Regional Transport, the Secretary of State for Transport said:
LRT is appraising the extensions of the Docklands light railway to Lewisham and of the east London line northwards … It is taking forward studies of the Croydon light rail system with the borough and BR.
That is a further and timely indication of the interest right across the nation in light railway or metro systems, as they are referred to.
When I first came to the House, I shared an office for a number of years with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), the Minister for Sport. I was well aware of his keen interest in metro systems. I am sure that he will be particularly pleased by the announcement made today.
In the almost seven years that I have been a Member of Parliament, there has been a dramatic growth in congestion on the roads leading into the city centre of Bristol. When I was first a Member of Parliament the rush hour lasted only about an hour and the backlog up the motorway, the M32, was only a mile and a half. The rush hour, on all the arterial roads, including the motorway, now lasts about two hours and stretches for several miles. Therefore, there is great need for action to be taken in the area.
I am pleased that both the county and the Department of Transport are funding the largest bypass system currently under construction anywhere in the country. I hope that it will be completed, as scheduled, in 1994 and that the area will benefit.
There is no doubt that the proposal for a light railway system is to be welcomed and is generally welcomed by the vast majority of the population, not because it will suddenly resolve all our congestion problems—it will not. Anyone who believes that any form of transport policy will suddently resolve our congestion problems is being extremely naive, if not downright stupid. What a metro system in Bristol and other areas may well do is to ease the growth of the congestion. People's propensity to travel is becoming ever greater and, therefore, we must tackle the problems in a radical way.
The metro is a radical proposal. The proposals put forward are environmentally friendly and will not add to the congestion on main roads or to the fumes in areas of dense urban population. Therefore, the metro system is to be welcomed provided it can be successfully negotiated between the local community, local councils and the proposed operator. I notice that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) are present, and I am sure that they will talk about the midlands proposals.
In Bristol, parliamentary approval has already been received for one stage and two further stages have been lodged before the House. First, it is proposed that there should be a road link through the city centre towards Temple Meads. Secondly, it is proposed that there should be a two-armed link out to both Yate and Bradley Stoke.
Negotiations have been taking place during the past two years and it has proved possible to achieve agreement with organisations such as Avon county council. In the west country we all welcome the completion of those negotiations. However, in the next stages of the legislative process there are objections from three categories—the blockers, the negotiators and the concerned.
Objections in the form of petitions have been placed by Kingswood council and other groups which believe that they can negotiate with Advanced Transport for Avon and other interested parties to achieve a working agreement in the same way that Avon county council has. Also, a large number of organisations and individuals are concerned because they do not understand the position, believe that the ATA has been unable to meet their objections and do not know where they will be left at the end of the day.
When I first started discussions with the ATA on the subject, it was talking about running the system through my own constituency, at Staple Hill, which at present has a cycleway running through it. It was proposed that the cycleway should be diverted through the centre of Staple Hill and back down on to the track where there is a tunnel. I said that that was utterly unacceptable because we could not require people to mount what is virtually a hillside, 200 ft high, carrying their bikes, go along a congested high street and come back down the other side. We have managed to resolve that problem and agreed with the ATA that, instead of having a double track through a tunnel, we now have a single track and a protected walkway and cycleway.
Quite naturally, both cycling and pedestrian organisations are still concerned that their rights of way will be obstructed. However, I believe that the problem can be resolved and there should be further negotiations. At


present, the ATA's proposals are that the cycle and pedestrian ways will be protected through the length of the cycle path and will be a minimum of 2·5 m wide. However, there are still safety way and fencing problems which must be dealt with. They could be resolved by further discussions.
Safety obviously concerns people because they are not sure of the regulations. I understand that all aspects of a metro's operation are covered by the rail inspectorate. I should like the Minister to confirm that when he replies because it is of substantial concern to local residents at any point along the railway.
The objective of a metro is to ease urban congestion. There has been concern that wherever there is a station there will be huge parking problems. Following discussions among myself and others, including my colleagues who represent other parts of the proposed rail system, it has emerged that there will be two extra stations and there will be a station every 800 yd. That should obviate the need for the vast majority of people to drive to stations and, therefore, the need for large areas of parking.
In many instances there should not be any requirement to provide parking. I understand from the ATA that it is determined that any decision on parking or on the subject of similar objections should be made as a result of negotiation with the local council. When talking about negotiations with councils, it should be understood that there is a need effectively to communicate. The proposers of a metro system must be conscious of the level of ignorance that is to be found among ordinary people and councillors about the general operation of such a system. I advocate strongly that the ATA talks more clearly and openly to local councillors in particular, who are the representatives of the individuals who are most concerned.
I have said already that in part of my constituency the metro will go through a tunnel. Local people are unsure of what that will mean in terms of noise or vibration. I understand that the Department of Transport has confirmed that a study is taking place on noise levels on railways, including light railways. I ask that the Department includes in the study, if possible, the impact of vibration. In my constituency the metro would pass through a tunnel for several hundred yards and many of the houses above the tunnel were built since the old railway system stopped operating, or the occupants of the houses have moved in since the ending of that operation. Therefore, they are unsure. Indeed, they are extremely concerned. They have presented a petition against the proposal because they do not know what impact vibration will have, if any. I am told by the operators that vibrations will not have any impact, but there is nowhere in Britain where a light railway system runs through a tunnel. I cannot confirm or deny what the proposed operators have told me and nor can the proposers. I should like some independent advice from the Department.
The other group which is negotiating on the metro and which finds it difficult to understand the system is one whose members have bought houses in the area since the light railway system has been proposed. I am critical of Bristol city council for not drawing clearly enough to the attention of proposed developers and home owners the ideas of the ATA.
I referred earlier to blockers, and I refer specifically to Bristol city council. Negotiations have been successfully concluded with Avon county council. I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that that is a hung council. Negotiations took place with all the parties and a draft working agreement is available. There is also a draft working agreement with the other councils, which has been arrived at on much the same basis. The district councils of Kingswood and North Avon believe that matters can be resolved, but they have presented what they describe as protective petitions.
The objection of Bristol city council has been so clear and so firm that it has effectively stopped the middle link of the light railway system. Without the link between Wapping road and Temple Meads, we effectively do not have a system. The light railway would come to an end and then start again about a mile further on. Temple Meads is the ideal location for the system to be centred upon. It would enable travellers to leave the main railway system and get straight on to the light railway system.
I understand that the elected Labour city councillors voted to support the proposal some months ago. There was then a meeting of unelected members of the Bristol Labour party, who are not representatives of any particular group, at which the decision of the elected councillors was overturned by a majority of one. I think that everyone strongly regrets that decision. I hope that by further negotiations between Bristol city Labour councillors and the ATA we can rapidly arrive at the same position as that which has been established with Avon county council. That would be a working agreement that could be operated and an understanding that the centre section of the proposed metro could go ahead. The ATA believes that its proposals would provide an integrated system with Temple Meads and with the bus operators. That has been a matter of concern to Labour councillors and Bristol Labour Members. I appeal to Labour councillors and to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who is not, unfortunately, in her place this evening, to remove their objections and to say that they are willing to support what I believe is a worthwhile proposal.
The Order Paper refers to "Government support" for the metro system. Having removed the objections of Bristol city council, which I believe can and should be done rapidly—we should not delay until after the local elections —we need to be able to apply for section 56 grants. We have already lost our position in the queue to Manchester, Sheffield and, probably, the midlands. I should like an assurance that the Department will consider the ATA's proposals seriously—I understand that they will come forward in the next few weeks—and a second assurance that the Department has enough finance available for the ATA's proposals and for others.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that metros are a growth area. A few years ago there were virtually no parts of the country that wanted to submit proposals for a light railway system. Therefore, the Department was not being asked to finance such projects. Different regions are now falling over themselves in competing for relatively limited moneys. I appeal to the Department, in framing its budget for forthcoming years, to give serious consideration to making available considerably more section 56 moneys so that proposals that many support can be implemented rapidly.


There is a worthwhile proposal from Avon, and with a series of negotiations we can deal with most of the objections. Without the removal of the block by Bristol city council—the Labour group—the proposal will go ahead, but there will not be a worthwhile network to serve the whole area. I hope that the Department can and will provide satisfactory finance to help the system to be implemented. I hope also that it can give a clear sign, because of the problems that we face in Bristol, that there will be tests on vibration and general noise levels. That will be a means of easing the concerns of many residents in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on the way in which he has presented his case on behalf of Avon. I wish to express concern about the matters that worry him. These include whether he will get into the queue on behalf of Avon and whether the necessary money will be available.
I do not wish to repeat the detail that I included in my speech in favour of the second Midland Metro Bill. The first such measure is now an Act. I want, however, to make the House aware of some of the difficulties of introducing and financing breathtaking conceptions of a new form of transport that will become available to move the public in much larger numbers than can be done now on our roads and with less congestion.
We are faced in this place with an entirely obsolescent private Bill procedure. It is, regrettably, the only one available. It is objected to by many hon. Members on both sides of the House as inappropriate to the passage of any Bill. Regrettably, they regard that as giving them the right to interrupt and impede the progress of Bills and so prevent them from reaching the statute book. I hope that the House will give further thought to adopting a procedure that is more appropriate to this day and age.
Before a private Bill can be published, the exact route along which the lines will be built must be promulgated. That means that a lengthy and widespread public consultation procedure must be followed. One cannot please all the people all the time, and it is difficult to go through the proper consultation procedure in time to comply with the requirements of the Bill.
We must also consider funding for such schemes. I note that, in addition to the applications mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, four schemes have already been enacted and the Bills for two more are already before Parliament. A further seven are before us for consideration, and 25 studies are in progress in other cities. It is a very big sphere.
Funding must come from the Government, from the EEC, from the private sector—perhaps by operational concession—and from local sources. It is no easy matter to amass and amalgamate the funds and to work out where the money should come from and in what proportion. The Government will have to consider a formula for that. They will have carefully to reappraise the socio-economic benefits so that they can compare them with those built into the rate of return that they seek for road schemes. Road schemes carry less traffic, their capacity is less, and they cost many times more.
The Birmingham heartlands spine road is to cost about six times as much as a rapid rail transport scheme.

Birmingham rapid rail transport line cost £3 million per kilometre. The current proposals are estimated as costing between £5 million and £10 million per kilometre and, in the case of the docklands light electric railway, some £20 million per kilometre.
The advantages in terms of prices and costs are clear. The proposals will provide jobs for many people and help to cure our problems by giving us an environmentally friendly system for moving people that is most attractive to look at and that performs whisper-quietly, unlike the old tramway system. The metro can negotiate city roads with tight corners and carry in its vehicles many more people, and will help us to get rid of traffic congestion. It will also help to improve our manufacturing capacity in no uncertain manner and will add a whole new dimension.
I beg the Minister to think deeply about the equation for costing the socio-economic benefits and the rates of return that the Government seek for investment in road transport. If he did so helpfully more money could be made available from the public sector.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman add a supplementary question to the Minister and ask him why, in view of his sincere interest and questioning, the Department has recently changed the rules so that those proposing such systems have to prove the benefit to non-users? That will cause enormous delays in the completion of the Birmingham system, in which both he and I are interested, and make it much more difficult.

Mr. Bevan: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The assessment of non-user benefits lies at the heart of the problem. Doubtless, now that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that subject, he will not find it necessary to refer to it in the speech that he will make shortly. We are all ad idem in wanting to develop modern rail systems. I have been fortunate enough to see such systems throughout the world—in America and Europe. The 1960s witnessed the development of such systems in the United States; the 1970s saw their development in Germany; the 1980s brought them to France. Each system was bettter than the last, and the most perfect system so far is now to be seen in Grenoble. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the 1990s will bring the rapid implementation of such systems—the very finest—financed from all sources in the public and private sectors, throughout Great Britain.

Mr. Iain Mills: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on having been chosen in the ballot and on his important speech. I think his constituents, and, I hope, his council, will listen to what he has said. He referred to a number of impediments in the system that is to help Bristol. I welcome the Midland metro, which will help my constituents, but I have a few points to put to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood and for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and to the rest of the House.
We all face two difficult, balanced problems. We must weigh possible improvements and the participation of local people in the shaping of those improvements. Why on earth do we have such an arcane procedure at present? The private Bill procedure does nothing at all for democracy. It does not help people to put their point of


view and it is archaic; it is as though we were living in the last century. Arguments advanced in Bristol, in the west midlands or anywhere else should be heard in some form of public inquiry which would allow people to participate properly.
I wish I had a pound for every time someone has said to me, "I should like to see a better transport system, a Midland metro,"—in my hon. Friend's case, a Bristol metro—"but please provide me with some means of ensuring that the route suits me." It is not a case of, "Stop the route" or Don't put it there"; it may be a question of a move by a few yards, or a change in the traffic arrangements, or better car parking facilities, or better landscaping. Indeed, people could be asked where they want stops to be located. Under the present procedure, many people are prevented even from stating their views.
This is my hon. Friend's time, and I may be transgressing slightly, but I must refer to four groups that have protested to me, although not against having a metro in our area. This is a most important matter. It is a question of connecting Birmingham with the national exhibition centre. We are not against a better system running right across the egg-shaped part of the centre of England that I represent. In fact, we should like to see one in operation, but with the odd changes that the four groups who petitioned this House proposed.
As I spoke on Second Reading of the Bill, I shall not go on at length tonight. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may have heard me speak then against the private Bill procedure. Three out of those four groups were prevented by that procedure from petitioning this House. The senior Deputy Speaker, whose judgment I trust absolutely, has confirmed that people whose land is not actually crossed by the route may not petition this House. Yet this route is as close as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).

Mr. Snape: But not as noisy.

Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman is well known for his skill in debate. I shall not comment on the noise he makes, except to say that sometimes it is pleasant and sometimes not. We shall have to wait to hear what it will be like tonight.
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will not mind the main point that I want to make. This House must find a better way of proceeding with what is the most important development in public transport. We need light rail systems. We need quiet trams. My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley has explained how well these are doing at Grenoble. When constituents believe that they will provide a better transport system for both Bristol and the west midlands, why should procedures prevent those people from having their say? Little problems concerning routes are big problems for people living within metres of a line. By all means let us have grants from our own Government and from the European Community to improve systems. Unless public transport is improved, the west midlands and, indeed, Bristol, which I know quite well, will face real problems. The roads will be crowded.
Let us provide the funds, by whatever means—councils, the Government or the EEC. We must do all that we can to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood does not have to face difficulties from the local council. Let

us make sure that those people who would welcome this benefit to their areas are provided with a real voice, that they are not denied the opportunity to make their suggestions. I am glad to say that, in the case of the west midlands, Centro—the West Midlands transport executive —has agreed that there should be further consultation. That should have happened long ago. By a combination of public pressure and public agreement, a better transport system could have been created to take us into the next century. But changes in the procedures of this House in respect of private Bills are essential.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) for providing the opportunity to debate this important subject, especially at a reasonable hour of the night. I do not suggest that had the hon. Gentleman been less successful in the ballot we might not have welcomed his contribution in quite the same way.
I shall deal in reverse order with the contributions that have been made so far. The points that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) made are ones that I have heard him make before. That is not intended as a criticism: he has every right to speak as often as he deems necessary on behalf of his constitutents. He will be aware of my views. I, too, believe that the objectors to the Midland metro should have been allowed to make their case before the appropriate Committee. Like the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), I find the private Bill procedure less than satisfactory—to say the least—when it comes to proper consideration of objectors' views.
Opponents should be allowed to put their points of view and, like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the further consultation that has been promised to those groups. I happen to believe that they are wrong, but I understand their fears. Like the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Yardley, I, too, have seen the metro schemes, particularly in Grenoble, other parts of France and in Germany. Many of the fears that have been expressed about noise and pollution are groundless. There is little point in running such schemes through areas of low population because they need to run through fairly heavily built-up areas if they are to justify the cost of installation.

Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Grenoble only about 53 per cent. voted in favour of the scheme initially, but subsequently, after the system had been running for two years, 93 per cent. were in favour? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for the objectors to be heard, we must deal with the point that inhibits them, that of locus standi—having to have a property interest along the line of the route? That must be expanded into a proper system of consultation.

Mr. Snape: I was not aware of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just given, but I accept them. The rules are far too restrictive. Those whose privacy and general environment are likely to be affected by such schemes should have the right to object rather than only people whose properties are directly affected. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have recently been to Grenoble to see the system there. I was most impressed by it, as I am sure that everyone who sees it would be. Like him, I found it possible not to hear the metro system, even though it was


only a few yards away from the restaurant in which I was enjoying a rather good dinner. The rattle of the cutlery, or perhaps it was the clink of the glasses—it was some time ago—far exceeded the noise of the trams. The noise was not in the least obtrusive. Many of the fears that have been expressed are understandable, but groundless.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of the scheme. I cannot challenge his figures, but he will probably agree when I say that at £3 million per kilometre they are a darn sight cheaper than most road schemes that the Department of Transport all too often favours. I am pleased that he agrees about the recent change in the investment criteria. If the Minister is not prepared to give permission for the funding of the schemes, I wish that he would come out and say it, so that we know where we stand.
Continually to change the rules, particularly when it adversely affects the projected profitability of the midland metro in Birmingham, is not helpful. It is nonsense to change the rules, as the Government have, so that benefits must be shown to non-users. That would not happen with any other mode of transport. I cannot see the sense in that rule change, other than as one of the delaying tactics in which the Department habitually engages. It makes the use of management time at Centro, formerly the West Midlands passenger transport authority, even less efficient. Instead of getting on with the job of managing, managers will have to find a fresh set of criteria to justify Midland metro to conform to the change of rules recently announced by the Department. That is a retrograde step and one that the Opposition deplore.
The hon. Member for Kingswood talked about the Avon scheme. I have also had recent experience of the Bristol rush hour, although not as much experience as he has had, and I am convinced that the traffic congestion round Bristol that he mentioned is serious and that something will have to be done in the 1990s to tackle it.
The Labour party's attitude towards such metro schemes is well documented in "Moving Britain into the 1990s: Labour's new programme for transport", which I commend to the hon. Member for Kingswood and to the Minister. I had some peripheral involvement in this document. It says:
Labour will also encourage public and private collaboration in rapid transit systems which provide attractive, modern, clean and fast movement through cities. Now common in Western Europe, 11 schemes are already being considered in British cities.
Since that document was drafted last year the number of British cities considering such schemes has increased by about half a dozen. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the document goes on to say:
Their development has been hindered by the narrowness of the government's financial approach. Labour will speed up the process for the construction of metro, light railway or tram systems in cities throughout Britain.
I have dealt with some of the details of the Government's changes to the criteria for giving the financial go-ahead for such schemes. It appears that the Avon scheme—about which the hon. Member for Kingswood has already spoken—meets the criteria.
I must say a few words about private sector involvement. I have made it plain that the Opposition have no deep ideological objections to it—[Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), is supposedly silent on these occasions, but he giggles girlishly for some reason.
Opposition Members believe that the great fault of private sector involvement in such schemes is that all too often promises do not match reality. We have seen that happen in London, with the much-trumpeted involvement by the property company, Olympia and York. in the extension of the Jubilee line. The millions of pounds originally promised have shrunk considerably.
All too often the private sector is not prepared to put up the cash, even though it benefits from the regeneration of urban areas that results from such schemes.

Mr. Hayward: I do not want to destroy what seems to be a bipartisan approach to light rail systems, but I noted that the hon. Gentleman quoted from the Labour policy document, saying that the Labour party would speed up the process. Will it oil the wheels with more money? Or is that also up for consideration along with the other 169 commitments in the Labour policy document?

Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman had contained himself for a few seconds more, I was about to explain how the Labour party will speed up the process—[Laughter.]—and if the Government Whip can contain himself. Perhaps at some time in the future he will be moved to a speaking post. We eagerly look forward to his contribution.
We propose to give local authorities such as Avon the right to approach the private money market and to take a leading role in raising capital for such schemes without the— I was going to say dead hand, but I would not be so cruel to the Minister—shadowy figure of the Minister leaning over their shoulders. If a financial case can be made for such a scheme, I hope that there will be no ideological objections from the Conservative party to allowing local authorities the right to approach the private sector direct to seek its involvement. I hope that that little policy snippet also appeals to the Government Whip, although I had better not provoke him—[Interruption.] The Whip appears to find it revealing and interesting; we should be grateful that it is outside the normal conventions of the House for him to reply.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingswood agrees that such an approach would be quicker, and—in his immortal phrase—would oil the wheels, although I understand some of the fears that he expressed about the Avon scheme. The Labour party's rules make it clear that decisions should be taken by elected Members; thus the Bristol district Labour party has no standing on the day-to-day decision-making processes, and nor has any other district Labour party.
I visited Bristol at the end of last year to speak at a light railway conference. I made the closing speech; the Minister for Public Transport opened the conference. Both our speeches were greeted, if not with acclamation, with a good deal of interest. While I was there I was approached by the management of Advanced Transport for Avon Ltd. about the dilemma—as ATA perceived it—and the difficulties that it was having with Bristol city council.
I explained to the local media that I did not know enough about the position on the ground in Bristol to make any detailed comment. However, I subsequently wrote on 3 January to the leader of Bristol city council about the difficulties. It is a long letter, and I do not propose to read it to the House; but I offered to come to speak privately to the group, and to play any mediating role that it thought would resolve the difficulties. Alas, I


have received neither reply nor acknowledgment to that letter, so I am reduced to repeating the same offer tonight. I hope that Bristol city council will not think that at some unspecified time in the future a Labour Government—like the United States cavalry—will gallop to Bristol's rescue if, for ideological reasons, the scheme falls by the wayside.
As the hon. Member for Kingswood said, many other towns and cities in the United Kingdom are at present drawing up, or have introduced, parliamentary Bills for metro systems. I have received assurances from ATA about its intention to introduce a public transport system that will be fully integrated to combine buses and taxis, and which will allow co-ordinated interchanges, through ticketing and related services. That would appear to meet the criteria laid down in the Labour party's national policy document to which I have referred.
I hope that these Advanced Transport for Avon matters can be resolved and that the city and the public sector will play a full part in promoting future schemes. In my letter to the leader of the city council I said that we must live in the real world. If we can obtain the go-ahead for the complete metro system only by means of this approach, that is better than having no metro system at all.

Mr. Hayward: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear comments on the position in Avon. I am not an expert in the Labour party's machinations; my grandfather was only deputy editor of The Daily Herald under the Attlee Government, so why should I know anything about the Labour party as it stands today? Will he confirm that what he said regarding the meeting with the Bristol Labour party as opposed to the Bristol city Labour group was that that vote is not binding on the actions of Bristol city Labour councillors?

Mr. Snape: I said, and I repeat, that no district Labour party anywhere in the country can bind elected Labour councillors when it comes to the decision-making processes of the authority. That applies just as much to Bristol district Labour party as it does to any other. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not know very much about Labour party rules. It is not unreasonable to describe them as byzantine.
I hope that the environmental and other transport benefits of the system will be realised, provided that there is agreement and co-operation between ATA and Bristol city council. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's point that the transport authority for the area is Avon county council. Although it is a hung council, it has agreed to the proposals. I hope that any outstanding difficulties will be resolved, despite the unsatisfactory nature of the private Bill procedure—a point on which all hon. Members agree.
I apologise for detaining the House for so long. However, I thought it right to point out that the Midland metro system and the ATA scheme are worthy of support and conform with the Labour party's views on urban transport in the 1990s.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on securing the debate and in particular on securing it at such a civilised hour. As the Minister who was selected to respond to this debate, I say

that with real feeling, not merely as a conventional courtesy. There is a saying that Ministers now abed will think themselves accursed. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I am happy to be responding to the debate at this civilised hour.
My hon. Friend referred to the development of light rail systems and made it clear that it is not just in Avon that great interest is being shown in them. Similar proposals have been made throughout the country. He was perfectly right to say that the benefits that are being sought from light rail systems include escaping from traffic congestion and providing high capacity systems for greater numbers of passengers.
The Government have followed the development of light rail systems with great interest and considerable encouragement. I am pleased to see that the Transport Select Committee will be considering the options for public transport in urban areas, including light rapid transit, and hon. Members will look forward to the Committee's views in due course.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke not so much with appalling frankness as with endearing candour about his exchanges with the Bristol Labour party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will have found much of what he said extremely helpful, so we thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments.

Mr. Snape: In that case, I had better withdraw most of what I said.

Mr. Portillo: The record stands.
It was churlish, in an otherwise generous speech, for the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East to pour a number of criticisms on the head of the Government. After all, under the Conservatives, a light rail system has been built in the east end of London—the docklands light railway, which is now operational. That is one more light rail system than was brought into operation under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Snape: The Minister is wrong again. It is a shabby affair in docklands—non-integrated and rather tatty, and it breaks down with monotonous regularity—and is not to be compared with the system in Newcastle, which was introduced by the last Labour Government—

Mr. Portillo: Oh?

Mr. Snape: It was brought into operation in 1977–78, those halcyon days when the Minister was probably still at school and the people rejoiced.

Mr. Portillo: My recollection is that it was brought into operation in 1981, but let us not quibble about it. We have approved a light rail system which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East did not mention. I refer to the Manchester metrolink system, an important project which cost £110 million to build on the basis of a 50 per cent. section 56 grant from the Government for the eligible expenditure.
In other words, under the Conservatives there has been not simply talk about light rail systems, but action. The docklands light railway proves the point, and it is going from strength to strength. The hon. Gentleman had some ungenerous criticisms to make of the docklands light railway, but it is now being extended to Beckton and Bank, the frequency of operation is being increased and it will


shortly move to two-car operation. I am concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, about the reliability of the operation, a matter to which the management of the railway is giving much attention. That is happening under my guidance, in my role as the Minister with special responsibility for transport in docklands.
The Manchester project was approved and the money committed during our announcement last summer on public expenditure. That has been widely welcomed in Manchester. More than that, we have been carefully. considering the light rail system proposed for south Yorkshire, the supertram system. That proposal was not given approval by the Government last summer, as the PTE would have wished. At a time when the Government made a generous settlement for transport—both public transport and roads—we were not able to find the resources last summer for the project, and the PTE was anxious that I should let it know whether the project in principle met the criteria that we had established.
I considered that carefully and was happy to write to Councillor Meredith, chairman of the South Yorkshire PTA, on 22 February, saying:
I am glad to say that the combined project currently meets our appraisal criteria.
That was an important statement for building confidence, so that the south Yorkshire development could continue, and in proving the point—questioned by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan)—that the criteria that had been set by the Government for light rail systems were achievable criteria. In the case of south Yorkshire, we have now approved expenditure of £6 million so that the project can be worked up further and considered at the appropriate time.
The purpose of the criteria, which have been mentioned in the debate, is to establish that, where there are external benefits for which it is not reasonable for the users of the system to pay, they can justify the payment of grant from Government funds. The criteria are pretty widely drawn and are set out in a circular sent out from my Department on 3 November 1989:
Benefits to non-users will in most cases arise mainly from the relief from congestion. Other external benefits may include environmental improvements … Where relevant, promoters should also give an assessment of economic development, job creation, or regeneration benefits where these are in line with Government objectives, particularly in inner-city areas.
Those criteria are quite broadly drawn. If we are to be in the business of giving Government subsidy for those rail projects, it must be on the basis that the subsidy can be justified in terms of benefits which one could not expect to recoup from users of the system, but which are benefits for the general population. We have drawn the criteria broadly, and in the case of Sheffield it has proved possible for the criteria to be met in principle. We shall be interested to hear how the Sheffield project continues to be developed and we shall want to consider it for funding at the appropriate time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood asked me to give an assurance that funds would be available for the projects. My hon. Friend has considerable experience of the workings not only of government, but of the Department of Transport. I am bound to say to him that it is simply impossible to make such a commitment outside the normal public expenditure survey period. When the time comes, we shall want to consider the light rail project

in line with others. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not a matter of theory, as we have already been able to give approval to a substantial sum in the case of Manchester.

Mr. Snape: I shall try not to interrupt again, but while we are on the subject of approvals for the schemes, will the Minister tell us about the Midland metro scheme and how soon the first line, which will pass through our respective constituencies, Madam Deputy Speaker, will get the go ahead?

Mr. Portillo: I cannot make such a prediction. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the case of the Midland metro system, and in the case of the Bristol system or any other he may care to mention, there is not yet a firm proposal before the Department for us to consider. We shall be very willing to consider such proposals for section 56 grant when they come forward.
In addition, the project can apply to us for section 56 grant to help with the development of the case for the project. That has happened in the case of Sheffield. south Yorkshire. We have been able to make available funding of £6 million for the development stage of the project, rather than for the project itself. A similar pattern was followed in the case of Manchester.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood wanted to know whether I would confirm that the railway inspectorate had a role in light rail systems. I am happy to confirm that to him. The railway inspectorate would need to approve the works, and the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport would also be required, before the railway came into operation. The railway inspectorate would have health and safety responsibilities for the railway and any accidents on it would have to be reported under schedule 1 to the Railways (Notice of Accidents) Order 1986, on which I gave a written answer on 23 March.
My hon. Friend was also concerned about noise levels and vibration. He will have seen the answer that I gave on 23 March, which said that we had set up a committee so that we could consider the establishment of a national noise insulation standard, or standards, for the operation of new railway lines that would be related to the standard set by regulation for new highways. I shall reflect upon what my hon. Friend has said this evening, but the important point is that we want to treat railways in exactly the same way as highways, and that announcement last week was widely welcome.
I believe that it is reasonable to ask of any operator proposing a new service that he be able to give the most thorough information to those who will be affected. There is probably a considerable caucus of experience on the operation of railways on which to base information given to interested parties.
My hon. Friends the Member for Yardley and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) were perhaps principally concerned in their speeches about private Bill procedure and its shortcomings, as they see it. I see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is something of an expert on this subject, so I almost hesitate to say any more in his presence. Both my hon. Friends will be well aware of the Joint Committee report on this subject. More to the point, they will probably have heard or read the comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, who has


said that he wishes to give urgent consideration to the matters raised in the report. It is not for me to go further than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley was concered about the funding criteria. In the case of the Midland metro proposal, he is of course speaking about a project that is very ambitious—I do not say that by way of criticism—and very expensive. He may be showing a certain nervousness about how that will shape up against the criteria. It is far too early to say, but I believe that the criteria are now very clear and firmly established, and it has been possible for one other system, the south Yorkshire, to qualify under those criteria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was concerned about what the attitude of Bristol city council would be and how that would affect the development of the proposal put forward by Advanced Transport for Avon Ltd. We welcome proposals from the private sector as well as from the public sector. When proposals come from the public sector, we are very keen that there should be some private sector involvement. When they come from the private sector, we are delighted to receive them and to consider them if there is an application for grant.
Obviously, if one intends to run a system through a particular area, it is very important to have some understanding with the city council. I have heard that Bristol city council has not given consent to the deposit of the ATA Bill for the city centre route, and that clearly must be a matter for the council. However, Avon county council, which is the highways and public transport authority, has given its consent. Plainly, however, there can be no decision on grant for that route until this

uncertainty has been resolved. As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, if the possibility of running through the city centre is excluded, that may have fundamental effects on the scheme as a whole, so I very much hope that these difficulties and uncertainties can be sorted out.
I have been very pleased to meet representatives of Avon county council and to discuss the project with them. It was a very productive meeting. However, I do not yet know what the position on grant will be. We are awaiting the outcome of the economic appraisal; when that has been received, I shall again want to know the views of Avon county council. I hope that the scheme will offer a worthwhile contribution to meeting congestion problems in and around Bristol.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has caused us to concentrate on one project, that for Avon, but the questions that arise there, paricularly about the way in which these projects will be appraised by the Government and about how they may qualify for section 56 grant, apply much more widely. The Government are well aware of the considerable and widespread interest in light rail systems. I think that the Government are right to establish clear criteria for the making of grant. It would be a mistake for us to be carried away by the idea that light rail systems are the only possible solutions to the public transport demands of various cities. There may be other, more cost-effective solutions. That is one good reason why any project should be assessed carefully, against well understood criteria.
The attitude of Government to light rail schemes is benign. We look forward to receiving applications. We have been pleased with the progress that we have been able to make so far, both with the construction of the docklands light railway and with the substantial grant aid to the Manchester metrolink project.

Orders of the Day — National Health Service

Miss Kate Hoey: I am very pleased to have been drawn No. 2 in this night of debating. Some people said to me, "You are lucky that you will not be here in the early hours of the morning. There will be many Members in the Chamber for your debate." When I see the number who are here at 9.40 pm, I do not know what the attendance will be like at 4.40 am. Perhaps it is time that the House examined some of the anachronisms about the way it is run.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the National Health Service and its underfunding. It is no surprise to me that people generally are concerned about what is happening to the National Health Service. When I was speaking today to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), it was clear from what she was saying that one substantial reason why large numbers of people shifted their vote to Labour last week was their dissatisfaction about the way the Government are running the National Health Service and their underlying fears about the future. The Government will ignore that message at their peril.
The fear is justified, particularly when we consider that the Government chose last week to guillotine arbitrarily the debate on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The guillotine resulted in nearly 100 amendments not being debated. I hope that we can concentrate on the underfunding aspect of the Health Service.
The Government have attempted to defend their record on the Health Service. It is like trying to defend the indefensible. With nearly 1 million people waiting for hospital treatment, the Government's statements ring false. In my constituency people's everyday experience of what is happening to them when they seek treatment under the National Health Service speaks much louder than any single Government statistic. As we reach the end of the financial year, and as regional and district health authorities face the increasing need for money, they are having to struggle desperately to keep within their cash-starved limits.
The first casualty in West Lambeth health authority has been bed closures—the so-called temporary closure of beds that soon becomes permanent. That is happening not only in West Lambeth but throughout the country. The district health authority has recently had to make some savage cuts to meet the spending limits and a shortfall that was much greater than it had expected. Some of those cuts have been spelt out clearly in letters to the Secretary of State for Health from the community health council.
Some of the worst effects of those cuts are felt in a hospital that does not receive the publicity that St. Thomas' hospital does—I refer to the South Western hospital in West Lambeth district health authority. The staffing levels in psychiatric wards there were reduced at short notice to such an extent that even the unit manager said publicly that he no longer felt that the hospital was able to provide health care and that it was simply acting as a place in which people could just about be kept safe. As a result of the outcry about what was happening, there has been some temporary improvement, but the morale of the staff in the hospital is low. The cuts have affected the way in which people work and operate and mean that they

cannot do their jobs as they would like. There have been cuts in the paramedical staff, and the dismissal of the agency occupational therapists has severely affected both the Tooting Bec and the South Western hospitals. Physiotherapy activities, which are so important in such hospitals, have been reduced to a minimum.
There have also been what may seem to be minor but which are very sad cuts. I refer to cuts in the clothing supply and even in the food supply. One resident has stated publicly that it is like living on war rations. There are such shortages of food on some wards that a hospital sister was triumphant and happy at managing to get some extra eggs from another section. No wonder that people are feeling extremely concerned about what is happening in our National Health Service.
West Lambeth district health authority runs the Lambeth community care centre, which is a unique project. Reductions in its nursing staff mean that the centre has to manage its caseload to ensure that it does not have too many high dependency patients at any time. That means that that facility is being used at less than its full capacity. People who could otherwise have benefited from it are now having to use the more expensive acute hospital beds.
Those are just some of the events of the past couple of months. However, we must also consider what will happen after 1 April. The health authority is having to consider drastic cuts which, if implemented, will mean that about 150 staff posts will disappear and that another four wards may be closed. That will mean an increase in the number of people waiting to become patients.
In an answer to me on Tuesday last week, the Secretary of State for Health told me that funding for the West Lambeth district health authority had been increased this year by 7 per cent. in real terms. I have never been very good at maths, but I remind the Secretary of State that this year's allocation for West Lambeth was £103 million, which was only a 5·5 per cent. increase over last year's funding of £97·6 million. Therefore, his answer last week was incorrect. Furthermore, that increase did not take inflation into account. As is happening all over the country, the increase did not take into account the full funding of the staff pay awards. At the moment, the health authority is facing a projected shortfall for next year of £7·5 million. Cuts will have to be made somewhere, unless the Secretary of State intervenes.
I welcome the increase in capital expenditure for West Lambeth, but what is the logic of giving extra capital and of providing capital funds if the Government deprive the health authority of the revenue funding to maintain its services? The Government are inconsistent with their funding. Often they place an unacceptable burden of services that are used nationally on local health authorities.
In West Lambeth district health authority there are two specialist units which receive no national funding. We are proud of the Lane Fox unit. Indeed, the Minister was present at its opening at St. Thomas's hospital. It is the only specialist respiratory unit in the country. Its patients come from far and wide. Yet no extra money is given to the health authority from central funds for the unit. It costs approximately £1·25 million a year. We want the unit at St. Thomas's, but the Government must recognise that it is not used only by people in the health authority area. Similarly, St. John's Hospital for Diseases of the Skin, which moved to premises at St. Thomas's recently, serves


the whole community. It has been refused national recognition for central funding. Those two examples show not merely the unfairness of Government spending on the Health Service but how deliberate underfunding is hidden. The change in Government funding of the regions was welcome. But was it really necessary for the increased funding for some of the regions to be paid for by patients in inner-city areas such as Lambeth?
St. Thomas's is classed as a major accident and emergency unit. Up to 70 per cent. of patients who come into the hospital are booked in through the accident and emergency unit. Obviously, that adversely affects what is euphemistically referred to by people involved in the Health Service as non-urgent surgery. The majority of such surgery is for local residents.
Just last night, when the health authority was asked to make drastic cuts, it refused to do so and said that it wanted the proposals to be reconsidered. It was not prepared to cut another 160 beds. The health authority knows that cutting 160 beds will mean an even greater cut—a 10 per cent. cut—in out-patient appointments. Currently there are some 300 cancelled admissions every month. It is important to consider what that means. It means that sick people who expect to go into hospital on a certain day are turned away for lack of a bed on the morning of their admission or when they arrive at the hospital doors. The figure given—300 a month—cannot disguise the suffering and distress to individuals who may have already waited for months for an operation.
I have received several letters from people who have suffered in that way. I have one recent letter here. The lady —I shall not give her name—said:
On the day
of my operation the
Hospital staff phoned me to say they had no bed. I'm trying to keep my job … Some days I can hardly walk by the time I have finished. How much longer do I have to wait? To them it's not an emergency—to me it is … I thought I would tell you my story and I'm sure there are thousands more like mine.
There are thousands more like this lady. That is the personal side of bed closures.
At a teaching hospital, when there are fewer beds and operations, student doctors and nurses do not get experience. That creates a vicious circle. It does not help when it comes to recruiting to a hospital such as St. Thomas's.
The Secretary of State has implied to me that the problems of West Lambeth district health authority all stem from financial mismanagement. I have questioned the financial management at West Lambeth. Certainly the allegations which the regional health authority is currently investigating require an explanation. It is ironic that, while investigating the person who is responsible for the financial mismanagement, the regional health authority has given him a consultancy worth a substantial amount of money. The impartiality of the investigation must be questioned.
The financial mismanagement amounted to public awareness of the shortfall being delayed for approximately five months. It had nothing to do with the actual shortfall and underfunding. In future, whenever anything is raised about funding in West Lambeth, it would be sad if financial mismanagement was cited as the reason for underfunding.
As a direct result of the Government's suggestions and plans for the NHS, West Lambeth district health authority and St. Thomas's now have an army of accountants and management consultants employed by the regional health authority. The Secretary of State has admitted that the total spent by his Department and the district and regional health authorities to prepare for implementing the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is more than £80 million.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State knows St. Thomas's well and has had personal experience of the hospital. I hope that he realises that it is absolutely imperative for more negotiations to take place between the regional health authority and West Lambeth district health authority about the amount of money allocated for the coming year. It is not too late for the RHA to recognise the specific difficulties of West Lambeth district health authority, the needs of its area, and its peculiar problems.
It must be as unacceptable to the Minister as it is to me that there will be further reductions in services. We cannot accept a 10 per cent. cut in out-patient services or one more bed closure. We cannot allow more people to suffer the indignity of being told that their operation will no longer take place. Year after year West Lambeth district health authority has been told that if it just makes a few more sacrifices, if it just manages to close a few more beds and fiddle a few more figures, it will help to bring the district's finances under control. It is then told that, next year, everything will be all right. Year after year, however, things have got worse and we are now in a worse financial position than ever before.
The time has come to say that such a level of cuts is simply unattainable and that the health authority's priority is to maintain services to patients. The managers of that health authority have already said that they cannot carry out the wishes of the RHA and the Government to make cuts to enable them to provide a health service, let alone a decent one. Surely the time has come for the Government to make extra resources available to prevent the health services in West Lambeth from collapsing.
I hope that it is not too late for the Minister to listen, intervene and accept that the needs of West Lambeth district health authority and the people of West Lambeth are much greater than he, his fellow Ministers and the RHA have said. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that I have made.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on her good fortune in the ballot and also on the way in which she deployed her argument about Health Service underfunding in her area. Her story could be repeated in many parts of England and Wales. Her good fortune also means that those of us who want to comment on cuts in the Health Service can do so in this debate.
It is highly opportune that this debate is taking place tonight because yesterday evening Gwynedd health authority, which covers my constituency, had a meeting, yet again, to try to avert financial disaster. This is not the first time that Gwynedd health authority has been in that position. It has happened every year since at least 1984. During the past two years, particularly since I was elected to the House, I have warned the House and Ministers in


the Welsh Office that the authority's chronic financial plight must he sorted out. Hitherto, my plea in the House and elsewhere has fallen on deaf ears.
Last year, I went so far as to call on the Secretary of State for Wales to use his powers under existing legislation to intervene directly in the affairs of Gwynedd health authority. Sadly, on that occasion he refused to do so. The matter is vital because it affects the health care of nearly 250,000 people in north-west Wales.
A year ago I told the House that I was gravely concerned about the financial crisis which then faced Gwynedd health authority. As a result of decisions taken 12 months ago, a number of hospitals in Gwynedd are to close and vital community provision is being cut. I said then, and I repeat, that one of the major reasons why the health authority had to cut back last year was that it suffered chronic underfunding, but I accept that there are other reasons. Unfortunately, for some years, Gwynedd health authority has suffered from poor management control.
When I made these points last year, the Minister of State, Welsh Office, said that, although the health authority had suffered from particular management problems in the past, he believed that significant improvements had been made which would lead to the problems being solved. Unfortunately, this year Gwynedd health authority is in exactly the same position. Therefore, the best that one can say about the Minister's reply is that it was complacent in the extreme.
The difficulty for hon. Members and the public is that the health authority blames the Government for underfunding and the Government blame the health authority for mismanagement. That has already been said in this debate. It does not matter to the patient who is right or wrong. The problem is one of immediate concern to the patient who will not have his or her operation because wards have closed.
This year Gwynedd health authority estimates that unless cuts are made it will overspend by more than £2 million, and that sum will increase to £4 million next year. It blames the Welsh Office for underfunding. The crisis this year has already led to the closure of one ward at Gwynedd hospital in Bangor, which means that 23 operations have had to be cancelled, six of which were hip replacements. Yesterday, the area health authority gave its managers authority to make further cuts which could lead to the loss of 200 jobs and further ward closures in the next few years. That is an absolute scandal and should be stopped.
How can the health authority discharge its duties to provide a comprehensive health service to the people of Gwynedd when, during the past 15 months, it has taken a number of steps: first, to close several community hospitals; secondly, to sack 200 employees; thirdly, to close wards and day centres; fourthly, to freeze vital medical posts; and, fifthly, to cut essential community services. What sort of health authority and what sort of Government allow that to happen? I have a copy of the speech of the Secretary of State for Health to last year's Conservative conference, in which he said:
A lot of small hospitals are very popular and very threatened under the old way of doing things. In future thanks to the new funding arrangements which I propose, popular units and popular cottage hospitals will thrive if they attract patients. That is precisely how the new funding will operate, to provide wider choice and more local say.
I wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments, but how can Gwynedd health authority live up to that sort of statement

if hospitals have already been closed? There is no way in which a health authority can provide community provision if five hospitals in the county have been closed. If the Government are serious about providing decent community hospitals, they must reverse the closures.
The latest decisions on job losses and ward closures were confirmed late yesterday afternoon. The implications are staggering, especially for the elderly and the disabled. Unfortunately, the health authority has a reputation for cutting its community provision as it struggles with the finances of the main acute general hospital at Bangor. There is already a massive shortfall in community nursing, speech therapy, occupational therapy and all the other attendant services. I have no hesitation in saying that something must be done to improve health provision and health care in Gwynedd.
I was astounded to learn that from today no elective orthopaedic surgery is taking place within the NHS in Gwynedd. That is a scandal. The managers already have powers—they were passed through the area health authority yesterday—to close other wards as and when the need arises because there is a shortage of nurses and staff. The Secretary of State for Wales—I am sure that my comments will be passed on to him by the Under-Secretary of State for Health—cannot further abdicate his responsibility. He must intervene now to save the Health Service in Gwynedd.
I shall quote from the document which the health authority provided to its members in reaching the decision for further cuts yesterday. It is very much as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said—that if a few cuts are made here and there during one year, the authority concerned will be in a better position the following year. That is precisely what the Welsh Office told Gwynedd health authority last year. It implemented the cuts which the consultants who were asked by the Welsh Office to examine the Health Service in Gwynedd said that it should make.
Those cuts, however, were not enough. The general manager of the health authority told the members yesterday:
The interim strategy was the Action Plan,"—
the action plan is to close the hospitals—
which has not succeeded in the aim of bringing the Health Authority back into balance. This has largely been due to the accelerating pressures of inflation and under-funding of wage awards and regrading exercises, continued increase in workload and delays in obtaining decisions on the rationalisation proposals.
He also told me that the Welsh Office criteria for providing funding for Gwynedd health authority do not take into account the increase in the workload to meet demands caused by the increase in the elderly population as a proportion of the population as whole.
Is it not appalling that, according to the Western Mail, the general manager of Gwynedd health authority said:
The best way to get more money is a good cholera outbreak while the Welsh Office base their allocation of funds on standard mortality ratios. It is as stupid as that.
If that is the view of the general manager of health services in Gwynedd, it is a sorry state of affairs. Without direct Government intervention, Gwynedd health authority will collapse under the financial strain. I urge the Minister to pass my comments on to his colleagues at the Welsh Office.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on being lucky in the ballot and on her opening speech. It is my pleasure to reside in her constituency during the week and I am glad to know that she is actively representing my London interests tonight.
The central question to which we must address ourselves is why a Government who have had a huge pile of Exchequer resources, throughout their period in office and certainly in recent times, have found it necessary to underfund the National Health Service to the extent that they have. We know that they have had about £83 billion in North sea oil revenues and it is calculated that revenues from privatisation—the sale of state assets, council house sales and land sales—and other income have amounted to about £50 billion. Why have a Government with resources above and beyond those available to any previous Government chosen to do so little to increase National Health Service funding? My answer to that question is that they have deliberately chosen not to fund the National Health Service properly as part of a longer-term political strategy involving the transformation of the NHS as we have known it since just after the second world war.
About a year ago I read in the press the remarks of David Willetts, who appeared on "Question Time" a couple of weeks ago. David Willetts was the Prime Minister's previous health care adviser at No. 10 Downing street. About a year ago, he was reported in the press as having asked a senior civil servant what he would do with the Health Service if he were a Minister. The reply was interesting:
I'd either leave it entirely alone because it's too politically dangerous. Or I'd de-stabilise it and see what happened.
I believe that the Government have chosen a policy of destabilisation to pave the way for a different form of health care—the direct result of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill passed by this House a couple of weeks ago.
It is important to examine the destabilisation process. I believe that the Government have deliberately provoked industrial disputes in the National Health Service so that they can say to the public, "We have to do something about the National Health Service." The dispute with the nurses dragged on for far longer than it should have done; indeed, many nurses are still dissatisfied with the outcome of their grading appeals. More recently, there was the ambulance dispute—and one cannot but conclude that that dispute was inflamed by comments made by the Secretary of State for Health on a number of occasions.
Without doubt, the Government have deliberately underfunded the Health Service although, as I said, they had the resources available to do things that previous Governments could not. Year after year, we have shortfalls in the funding available to the NHS.
Figures provided by the National Association of Health Authorities indicate that there has been a shortfall every year since 1982–83. The figures are as follows: 1982–83, £67 million; 1983–84, £209 million; 1984–85, £334 million; 1985–86, £495 million; 1986–87, £550 million; 1987–88, £429 million; 1988–89, £472 million; 1989–90, £490 million. In addition, the capital improvement works needed to deal with the crumbling infrastructure of the Health Service will take £1·8 billion. Why have the Government done so little with all the money that has been

available to them over this period? They have failed completely to estimate the huge increase in the costs of the National Health Service. The cost of equipment, for instance, has increased well beyond the rate of inflation.
The Government have also failed to anticipate the huge increase in demand for services, much of which arises directly from their own social and economic policies. One thinks of the mass unemployment and poverty that have occurred under the present Government. I could reel off statistics from one research document after another, indicating the clear connection between the increased incidence of ill health and increased unemployment and poverty. The connection must be obvious to anyone, whatever their politics. Obviously the Government have underestimated it. They have also underestimated demographic changes, especially in terms of the number of elderly people and the increased expectations of better health care that people rightly have.
The Government have attempted to foster the idea that we can no longer afford a National Health Service and that we have to go back to the situation which prevailed in the last century and in the early days of this century. My parents have told me about that. I have heard about the appalling ways in which people had to scratch around to raise money for hospital beds. Nowadays there seems to be an increasing notion that health care can be improved only by raising money charitably. Recently I had a discussion with a lady who is involved in the hospice movement in Wakefield. On her arrival in Wakefield from elsewhere, she said that she was amazed at the number of charitable ventures by which money was being raised for health care —for basic facilities which ought to be provided within the National Health Service. That situation is giving rise to great concern, yet I believe that the Government, through their policies, are actively encouraging it.
We must also consider the implications of the Health and Medicines Act 1988. I had the questionable honour of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill and I recall the efforts that were made to defeat proposals which we felt would be detrimental to the Health Service. At local level we now have commercial managers coming up with all sorts of bizarre ways of raising money. The Under-Secretary of State is aware of some of the problems in Wakefield. He will know that the health authority there has proposed that patients who do not turn up at clinics should be fined. What a way to encourage people to take preventive measures. People are not to be asked why they did not attend but simply fined for non-attendance.
The Minister is aware of the classic case in Wakefield. I refer to the introduction of a charge for measuring bodies before removal from the hospital mortuary—at £5 a throw. The district general manager, in defence of the charge, asked why a public body like the NHS should subsidise private industry such as undertakers. Clearly, that official failed to understand that the charge is being passed directly to the bereaved families.
Another matter which is causing great concern and anger in Wakefield is the fact that Wakefield health authority is about to introduce car parking charges for people going to hospital. People who go for treatment will be charged for parking their car and people visiting their loved ones will also have to pay for the privilege. That is appalling. My concern is that if the Government remain in


power much longer, the next stage in the process will be that a person will have to pay to park his or her body in a bed.
We should consider the implications of the introduction of charges within the NHS because that process is part and parcel of the creation of a different climate and a different attitude towards health care. Under the Government there has been a massive increase in prescription charges from 20p to £3, without any commitment being stated in their manifesto, and charges for dental and eye checks have been introduced. The Under-Secretary of State will be aware of the huge drop in attendance for preventive checks at dentists and opticians and the appalling consequences that that will have for the nation's health in due course.
It is important that we understand why the Government have acted as they have. They did not need the money—they needed to introduce the idea that people will have to pay for health care. That is the important point to understand. We are moving towards a different form of health care in Britain. The Government are seeking to transform the public perception of health care, putting it on a more commercial basis. They are creating a crisis to make people believe that there is a need for the damaging reforms that they are introducing.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), whose constituency I had the pleasure to visit last week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall have said that certain services are being slashed right, left and centre, but alongside those cuts we are seeing the introduction of financial incentives for health authorities to opt out and form self-governing trusts. In a recent paper, the district general manager of the Wakefield health authority proposed that Wakefield health authority should opt out all its services, not just hospital services, but community services as well. He said:
It is already apparent that units identified for self-governance are receiving preferential funding to strengthen their skills, resources and market advantage.
He went on to say:
Concern has been expressed that any district not engaging in the new open market culture might become a Cinderella service of the NHS.
The Wakefield health authority has problems. As the Under-Secretary of State is aware, the health authority's treasurer has recently been sacked, for a variety of questionable reasons which I hope to raise on a subsequent occasion in the Chamber. He said, among other things, that nurse staffing levels were dangerously low but that money was being spent—irresponsibly in his view—on the opting-out process. The district general manager says that that is not true, but a consultant agrees that nurse staffing levels are dangerously low. District health authorities are being bribed to opt out in order to obtain the money that they need to provide a basic health service, and that is worrying.
I conclude by restating the point that underfunding needs to be seen in the wider context of the Conservative view of the NHS, which is one of hostility to state health care. The Conservatives oppose the forms of collective provision which we have had since 1946 and which are the envy of the world. They believe that only things which are bought and sold are valued.
The Government have completely misread the view of the British people on the issue and the extent to which the British people deeply believe in the Socialist principles of

the NHS. The National Health Service is the main reason above all the other reasons why the Government will very shortly—but not before time—be swept from power.

Mr. Keith Vaz: There has been an element of deja vu in these proceedings for those hon. Members who sat in the Chamber for the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made a compassionate and passionate speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has brought his deep knowledge of Health Service issues to this debate as he has done to many other such debates. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) has told us of the cuts occurring in the Health Service in Wales.
That element of deja vu will be repeated when the Under-Secretary gets up to speak. He will tell us the usual story, as all Ministers do, but especially this one. I do not wish to be unkind, as he seems to be a decent person who is trying to defend an indecent set of policies, but he is an identikit Conservative Minister who has to come forward to read the standard brief provided by No. 10 Downing street, telling Opposition Members that more money has been spent on the Health Service by the Government.
Someone suggested to me that the Under-Secretary seems to have been knitted by the Prime Minister on one of her days off because he is so similar to so many other Ministers in other Departments. He was the best of the Ministers who came before us in Committee. The Secretary of State was hardly ever present. He was spending his time battering the ambulance men. The Minister for Health was not present. She came to the Committee occasionally and disappeared halfway through discussions on vital clauses. At least the Under-Secretary was present and had some understanding of what was going on.
The Under-Secretary kept telling us that more money was being spent under this Government on the Health Service than under any other Government. I have news for him. Recently in Leicestershire the health authority announced the largest number of cuts ever announced by the health authority—a total of £30 million—as a result of this Government's policies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on initiating this debate. When the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, I would like him to tell us what the Leicestershire health authority is going to do now it has frozen those plans.
The royal infirmary, the flagship of Leicestershire health authority, whose employees were praised by the Prime Minister and hon. Members on both sides of the House after the terrible aeroplane crash at Kegworth, is going to freeze millions of pounds which should have been part of its spending plan. Two million pounds is to be frozen in spending on the new infectious disease unit; £300,000 on urgent repairs to the operating theatre floors; £300,000 on facilities for elderly patients; £200,000 on the conversion of adult wards to provide a large children's ward; £330,000 on the entrance to phase 4 of the new developments at the infirmary; £270,000 on storage facilities for records; £168,000 on the replacement of radiotherapy equipment; £660,000 on the upgrading of training facilities; £1,270,000 on the relocation of the medical, ear, nose and throat out-patients departments; £540,000 on upgrading the gastro-intestinal unit.


At the Leicester general hospital, £645,000 of the ward rationalisation programme will be frozen and £500,000 of the spending on the planned new pharmacy unit. Those cuts will affect the people of Leicestershire and my constituents. They total £30 million.
One of the features of Leicestershire is the way in which hon. Members from both sides of the House frequently meet the chairman and members of the health authorities. The Minister will encounter a good deal of difficulty when he hears the representations of Leicestershire Members. I should like to know how he can justify £30 million of cuts in the amount allocated to Leicestershire.
Why was it necessary for the health authority to make those cuts? The answer is quite simple. The outgoing chairman of the authority, George Farnham—a former Conservative councillor, and once chairman of Conservative-controlled Leicestershire county council—firmly believed that the reason was Government policy. He said that he had pressed Ministers and other Members of Parliament for years about Leicestershire's growing financial difficulties, but that his appeals had fallen on deaf ears.
Let us note what the experts are saying. Mr. Roger Austin, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at the general hospital, is quite clear where the blame lies: he has pointed out that surgeons in the hospital are more than willing to conduct hip replacement operations, but cannot do so because so many beds have been taken out of use and so many theatres are lying idle. According to Mr. Austin, the surgeons themselves have had to fight off possible closures of the orthopaedic ward in the past year.
I am sure that my next example will ring a bell with the Minister, as I raised it with him just after my Adjournment debate a year ago, when we discussed the occupational therapy service and the need to provide more resources to encourage more people to be part of it. I described to him then the problems faced by the general hospital's renal unit. I told him that the new unit had been established 18 months before—at a cost of some millions to the Health Service in Leicestershire—and that there were not enough funds to open all the beds.
I am pleased to say that the bed problem has now been solved: there are enough beds for patients. Because the renal unit has been so successful, however, it has now run out of money, and Trent region has told the Leicestershire health authority that it is no longer prepared to provide any extra resources.
Professor Bell—head of the renal unit, and a respected person in the Leicestershire NHS—had this to say:
Somebody has to tell the patients they cannot be treated. They will have to go away and die somewhere. I won't tell them".
Those are the words of a senior Health Service figure who is not given to making outlandish statements. He also said that, unless he is provided with the resources necessary to run his unit effectively, people will have to die because they will not be able to obtain the treatment that they so desperately need.
We are very proud of the general hospital's renal unit: we are proud that it is regarded as a sub-regional unit, and that the staff who currently work there are respected for what they do. If the funds are not available, however, they cannot carry out that work efficiently and effectively. I

urge the Minister to give us an assurance that he will go back to the regional health authority and demand that it provide the necessary resources.
The human suffering that people are having to undergo was demonstrated to me at my surgery last Saturday. There—in my office in Uppingham road—I met a man called Mr. George Brown. He is no relation to the George Brown who used to be a Member of Parliament; I asked him, and he confirmed that they were in no way related. Mr. Brown is in his 70s, and had difficulty in communicating with me: he is hard of hearing, and has no hearing aid. Mr. Brown has been told that he will have to wait for six months before his hearing aid is fitted, because of the delays at the royal infirmary. I asked the infirmary to provide me with the current waiting list. In December 1989, 684 people were on the waiting list for hearing aids. The vast majority are elderly people, like Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown suffers because he cannot lead an ordinary life. He cannot listen to the radio or television because he cannot hear what is said. He cannot go out on his own in Leicester, because he cannot hear traffic when he tries to cross the road. He cannot communicate with his Member of Parliament except through a third party, because he cannot hear what I have to say to him. That is human suffering, the face behind the statistics.
I pay tribute to the general manager of the royal infirmary, Mr. Paul Barker. I know that he is doing his best and that the infirmary has tried to cut the waiting list. However, it says that it does not have the funds to pay clinical and laboratory assistants the kind of salaries they need in order to staff the unit effectively. No money is available to pay them overtime to clear the waiting list. Therefore, Mr. Brown, and thousands of other people like him throughout the country, have to lead unnatural lives. One of them said to me a few weeks ago that he confidently expected that he would be dead before the hearing aid arrived. Then, of course, it will be too late.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said about the Health and Medicines Act 1988. The information officer of the Leicestershire branch of the Association of Optometrists published a report last week that was widely publicised in the local press. It suggested that the number of people who had had eye examinations was 30 per cent. lower than before the introduction of charges. He said:
The importance of proper eye care has been reduced by the way the Government has behaved.
He is clear about where the blame lies.
A new campaign has been started by a consultant paediatrician at the Leicester royal infirmary. Dr. Una MacFadzean would like the Department of Health and the Department of Transport to work together in order to provide concessionary fares for parents when visiting their sick children in hospital or when they accompany their children to out-patients departments. She feels that, because of the social fund and community care grant changes, parents are having to pay enormous sums of money to be with their children. She says that parents ought to be encouraged to be with their children when they are in hospital, because it helps them to get well soon.
I urge the Minister to take heed of that campaign, but I know exactly what he is going to say: that the Government have provided more money for health care than any other Government in history. However, I do not want a jumble sale Health Service in Britain. I do not want people to have to give money to jumble sales to support the Health Service.


When I visited America last year, I went to some hospitals there. I saw the future of the National Health Service in Britain when I was there, and I did not like what I saw. People in America have to pay for medical services.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) shakes her head, but in a casualty ward in an American hospital, I saw a person who wanted treatment turned away because he did not have a private medical insurance card.
For the next two and a half years, before the return of the next Labour Government, the Opposition will continue to press the Government for improved health care. We demand for the people of Britain a service that is free at the point of need and available to all. If the Minister will direct his comments to the matters that we have raised, I hope that we shall be able to return to our constituencies with some reassurance. Somehow, I believe that, when he speaks, we shall yet again be bitterly disappointed.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on her good fortune in gaining a place in the ballot, on her good judgment in choosing this subject for debate, and on her splendid presentation of her case. Her presence is a reminder—today of all days, when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) took her seat for the first time—of the number of excellent women who are joining the ranks of the parliamentary Labour party and who will be doing so in greater numbers at the next general election.
This debate, like many we have had in recent times, including the Committee stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) reminded us, is mainly about the problem of underfunding. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall dealt with the issues at West Lambeth. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out that, in addition to the problems of underfunding, there are industrial disputes, one of which—to which I shall refer later—is going on in my constituency, involving the Greater Glasgow health board. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), in describing the problems in Gwynedd, said that in Wales, as in the rest of the country, the problems of underfunding will not go away, however glossy the Government make their presentations and however persuasive the Minister tries to be tonight.
Hon. Members have the opportunity to find out precisely what is going on. We speak to our friends and constituents, and I begin by referring to some comments that were made to me today by two of my friends. My constituent, Janette Watson, a staff nurse from the mining village of Waterside in Strathkelvin, has worked for the Greater Glasgow health board for 24 years. She, in common with many of her colleagues, is now in dispute with the board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), who was present for much of the debate, would agree that it is one of the most dictatorial boards in Britain. Its attitude to this dispute—I regret that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, is not in his place—is an indication of that dictatorial approach to serious problems in the NHS.
What do the decisions of that board mean for Janette Watson? The board has imposed on her a decision which means that, instead of working an average 10 or 11-hour shift, she will work a shift of 9 hours 22½ minutes. This woman, who has given virtually a lifetime's service to the NHS in Greater Glasgow, will lose £450 a year. There are many equally unacceptable cases, all arising from the problem of underfunding.
Another friend with whom I talked today is Andrew MacKinlay, the prospective parliamentary Labour candidate for Thurrock. He showed me a document headed "Private and confidential"—it is not meant to be available to the public, including the taxpayers who pay for the NHS in that important area—which is to be discussed by his health authority on Thursday of this week. Some plans make even my hair stand on end, yet they are being seriously considered, not because they will lead to greater efficiency or because the Health Service in

that district will be better served but because the people who will consider that secret document on Thursday are compelled to think about the problems of underfunding which have dominated this debate.
What are some of the options that will be considered by that authority on Thursday? The closure of the accident and emergency unit at Orsett hospital will mean that people will have to travel a considerable distance to Basildon. We are told that, for 80 per cent. of those patients, the maximum travelling time to an accident and emergency unit will be 20 minutes and for the rest it will be 30 minutes. We are told in this secret and confidential document that the average travelling time by car to the accident and emergency unit will rise from 10 minutes to 14 minutes. Perhaps most staggering of all is the prediction that, if the report is approved on Thursday:
It is further estimated that the total number of new patient attendances in the District would decrease by 21 per cent. on closure of Orsett Hospital A &amp; E department.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: It seems that the Greater Glasgow health board is imitating some of the actions of the Lanarkshire health board. The same trick has been carried out at Stonehouse general hospital in my constituency. Two years ago, the board cut away the accident and emergency service. If someone has a heart attack now in Stonehouse, instead of it taking five minutes to reach a general hospital with an accident and emergency service, it takes half an hour to reach the next general hospital in my constituency, which is Law hospital. Such incidents are not happening only in Glasgow; it seems to be a tactic in Scotland which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, is deeply worrying.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is staggering that any health authority, as a result of underfunding, is taking a deliberate decision which will mean that it will take longer for people to arrive at the accident and emergency unit.
All of this, including the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) mentioned—and I was delighted to be in his constituency on Sunday evening and to know how well his constituents think of him—is caused by underfunding, by the shortfall that has been identified in virtually every authority in the country and by the simple fact that the proportion of national wealth devoted to health under this Government is far less than the proportion that would be expected and endorsed by the British people.
The consequences of that underfunding are clearly profound. Patients, staff and communities are concerned about what is happening to the Health Service as we understand it. The Minister will, of course, tell the House that, since 1979, expenditure on the NHS has increased —and no one has ever denied that. In the light of demography, inflation and other factors, it would be astonishing if that were not so. However, even with that increase, the Government, including in this financial year, have failed to take into account a number of important factors, including inflation. The 5 per cent. figure included in the current figures is clearly nowhere near the target that authorities must realistically face.
Moreover, the cash resources, limited as they are, are unevenly spread within the regions and from one part of the country to another. My hon. Friends have identified the problems and we know that there is a challenge to the


hospital and community health services, on the one hand, and to the family practitioner services, on the other. The challenges are not being met by the fiscal and economic priorities that the Government have offered to those who take decisions.
The fact is that real growth is necessary in the NHS in order to stand still, and nobody wants an NHS that simply stands still. We want to respond to the problems of the increasing number of elderly people, the new developments in technology and the need to implement central Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to community care. I do not know how serious the Government are being about the objectives that they set themselves in their White Paper, but I do know that my hon. Friend is absolutely right when she identifies yet again a decision on capital expenditure that is not met by revenue expenditure so as to make a reality of the original commitment.
On inflation alone, apart from the other factors that authorities have to deal with, there is a shortfall in England and Wales amounting to £140 million. Therefore, it is not surprising that the National Association of Health Authorities calculates that the shortfall between needs and income for this financial year, 1989–90, is £490 million. There is a very big difference betwen the £67 million in 1982, the year in which I came to the House, and the £490 million shortfall which that distinguished organisation identifies now.
In a reply recently to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) we learned that the backlog of maintenance and repairs was over £1·8 billion. This issue is very important in almost all our constituencies, as I saw recently when the Woodilee hospital in my own constituency, a hospital for geriatric patients, including some psycho-geriatric patients, literally fell apart and patients had to be removed to other hospitals in Greater Glasgow, some of them in the middle of the night. The outstanding amount of £1·8 billion for repairs and maintenance is a reality which authorities have to face and which the Government clearly have to take on board.
Investment has fallen as a proportion of national wealth in terms of our commitment as a nation to the future of the NHS. When the Minister, in replying to the debate, refers to Government investment, perhaps he will bear in mind comparisons which the British people will find unacceptable. Britain compares badly with other developed countries in terms of gross national product spent on health care. Between 1977 and 1987, Italy's GNP contributed 19 per cent., France's 14 per cent., the United States' 25 per cent., Belgium's 19 per cent. and the United Kingdom's 12 per cent.
When we consider our commitment and the need for investment in the Health Service, it is reasonable that we should look elsewhere to see what other countries are doing, and we find very little comfort indeed. In 1987, Britain devoted 5·8 per cent. of GNP to health. This compared very unfavourably with the United States at 11·1 per cent., Sweden at 8·9 per cent., Belgium at 7 per cent., Canada at 8·3 per cent. and West Germany at 9 per cent.
Because of the lack of investment, because the Government have in no way managed to keep up with the demands of inflation, because authorities have to take on board the real levels of wage settlements and the demands of increasing drugs bills—and I find it very surprising that

we hear so little about that—there are many problems, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has been right to draw to our attention.
I will refer briefly to only three articles, all in newspapers of different political complexions. The Daily Mirror had this to say on 30 January:
Heart patient Fred Brinkman lay in hospital for five weeks while health bosses squabbled over his bill. Doctors agreed that 62 year old Fred needs a life-saving operation. But two hard up health authorities couldn't agree as to which one of them should pay for his treatment".
If the Daily Mirror is unattractive to Conservative Members, let me quote The Daily Telegraph of 22 February:
A coroner called for an urgent review of intensive care facilities throughout Britain yesterday after a woman died when no bed could be found for her at 20 hospitals.
On 22 February The Guardian reported:
A health authority"—
Hounslow and Spelthorne—
facing budget problems is to move elderly mentally ill patients into hospital buildings categorised three years ago as 'fit only for demolition'.
The National Health Service as presented by the Government certainly is not fit for the approval of the House or of the people. It was therefore right that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall should have introduced the debate as she did. She did a great service not only to the House but to patients in Great Britain, to those who are committed to the Health Service and to those who work for it. It is on their behalf that I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks and look forward with anticipation but not with much confidence to the Minister giving a response worthy of the problems which have been brought to the Floor of the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): We have had a very interesting debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) who concentrated, as Opposition Members have said, on the underfunding of the Health Service. I have to say to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who somewhat taunted me, that the text has not been written at 10 Downing street—it is entirely mine, and the comments are entirely my own beliefs, representing my colleagues in the Department of Health. I take seriously the points made and I shall attempt to provide serious answers. I shall not give a long catalogue of achievements over the last 10 years. The hon. Gentleman has heard that before. I want to treat the comments made with greater seriousness.

Mr. Hood: rose—

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way as I have only 13 minutes in which to reply.
I shall pass the comments of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) to my colleagues at the Welsh Office. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not pursue the points that he raised.
The health and community health services are cash-limited. They have been cash-limited for almost 15 years. The process was started by a Labour Government in the late 1970s. I have always assumed that a future Labour Government would continue the process of cash-limiting the hospital service, although not the family practitioner service. Apart from certain elements of that service, we do


not cash-limit primary care. We have just announced £360 million for next year for practice staff and cost rent allowances for the family practitioner service, but essentially that service is not cash-limited.
When the hospital service is cash-limited, there is inevitably a clash of finite resources and almost infinite demand because it is a free service. In a service which does not have the sophistication of planning non-emergency services and case loads we do not yet have the ability to forecast as clearly as we should the pressures on the Health Service during the course of a year. We therefore have the problems to which the hon. Lady has referred. They are not entirely due to an inability to predict staff increases, which is certainly the case in the hon. Lady's own health authority, or patient admissions. It is a commentary on our Health Service that we do not have that sophistication at present.
Time prevents my reading out a list of our achievements in the past 10 years, but I will comment briefly that in 1990–91 the Health Service in the United Kingdom will spend some £29,000 million, which is equivalent to £500 per man, woman and child. It is an interesting comparison as the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was referring to the proportion of GDP, which is a relevant measure. Nevertheless, in real-terms—that is, at current prices—the money that was spent in 1978–79 was £338 per head, and it is now £500. Measured in terms of the retail price deflator, after allowing for general inflation, there has been a 45 per cent. increase in Health Service expenditure over the 10-year period. We now have a budget larger than that for defence.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Monklands, West will agree that because we are dealing with such a large chunk of public expenditure—12 per cent. now goes to the NHS—it is not possible to plan other than by way of cash limits. The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously suggest volume planning and indexing the cost of health care during the course of a year if inflationary pressures rise. I am sure that he is not suggesting that, as it is clearly impractical in terms of managing public expenditure.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) thought that there was some sinister plan behind the White Paper and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. He referred to deliberate underfunding and to destabilisation and said that Conservatives believe that only things that are bought and sold are valuable. I entirely dissociate myself from all those value judgments, as do my hon. Friends on the Back Benches. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the "Socialist principles" of the NHS. I hope that we have a bipartisan approach to the NHS. The Conservative, Labour and minor parties all have a common shared heritage in the NHS, of which we are all proud, and the Conservative Government are determined to ensure that both the quality and the quantity of its care improve.
Opposition Members have talked for an hour and a quarter about underfunding in the Health Service and I have stated the record to date. Not one Opposition Member—certainly not the hon. Member for Monklands, West—has said anything about the scale of real terms increases in expenditure that a Labour Government would introduce. I honestly believe that one advantage of our democratic system of government, in which the party in

government periodically changes—[Interruption.] I do not deny the history of the past 100 years and I am not making any forecasts about the future, but one advantage of our democratic system of government is that it provides a cold douche of reality for Opposition parties when they realise that they have to deal with real resources. As I have said, I have listened to one hour and 15 minutes of speeches about underfunding without hearing any view from Opposition Members about the level of resources that they feel are needed. I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Monklands, West if he would care to enlighten the House about the increase in expenditure that he is recommending. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is unable to comment. Indeed, that was the attitude of the Opposition during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
The House is entitled to know the level of increase in funding that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is recommending. The hon. Gentleman is quoted as saying that an extra £3,000 million is required immediately for the Health Service. I hope that I have quoted him correctly. I also hope that the hon. Member for Livingston will tell the House, at some appropriate time, what additional expenditure he envisages and where that money will come from.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister began his speech by refusing to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), saying that he had only 13 minutes in which to reply to the debate, but he has since steadfastly refused to reply to the points made in it. I refer the Minister to the Budget debates last week, in which his questions were answered time and again. Will he now answer our questions and tell us why the NHS has been so disgracefully treated by this Government who, unlike the last Labour Government, have had more than one spoonful of oil? What are they doing with the oil revenues? Why are they not investing some of it in the NHS?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will know that the shadow Chief Secretary has studiously refused to commit a future Labour Government to any increase in National Health Service spending. A commitment has been made only to increasing child benefit—part of the social security budget. I am not aware of any other commitments that have been made.
In addition to the 8·5 per cent. cash increase for the hospital and community health service next year, it is fair to include the value of cost improvement programmes at £150 million and income generation at £25 million. Both have an important role to play.

Miss Hoey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Lady will forgive me for a second, I shall certainly give way before I conclude. I am trying to answer the points raised in the debate.
The one specific comment about the Health Service in the Labour party's manifesto is that a Labour Government would eliminate compulsory competitive tendering. That would remove a contribution of the order of £100 million per annum. I admit that the consequences of inflation this year and next year for the Health Service are significant. The assumption of 5 per cent. inflation for the year 1991, which applies to the health authority of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, looks unrealistic. Therefore, it is not surprising that the 14 English regional health


authorities are advising the districts to plan for about 6·5 per cent. That is not the full retail prices index forecast for next year because health authorities do not pay mortgage interest rates and several other ingredients of the RPI do not apply to them. Nevertheless, there is pressure on them. The year 1990–91 will be difficult for many district health authorities simply because the additional cash provision now looks less generous than it was at the time of the public expenditure survey last year. That is even more reason why it is important to control inflation next year. It is important for a cash-limited service that the Chancellor should succeed.
I understand the points that the hon. Member for Vauxhall made about her health authority and I shall reflect them to the regional chairman. We have suffered a reduction in capital expenditure plans for the coming year largely because sales receipts from surplus land are substantially down. I hope that that is cyclical and will be reversed. I hope that plans that have had to be postponed or dropped in the constituencies of Vauxhall, Leicester, East and others will be reinstated when sales receipts begin to pick up again.
I hope, too, that one of the principal advantages of capital charges will be that they will tip the balance at the margin towards proper maintenance of buildings, rather than the provision of new buildings, much as we would like to see that.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall spoke of the pressure on the Thames regions and on her district health authority. Over the next five years or so the four Thames regions will have to move resources relatively out of inner London and towards the shire districts. That is reflected in the figures on expenditure in relation to the resources allocation working group targets. Even by the measure of weighted

capitation, which is the basis for allocation of funds in the future, regions must engineer a relative shift of resources out of London simply because patients have moved out of London. However, I agree with the hon. Lady, and I can provide her with some comfort on this, that when the regions allocate resources to the inner London districts, we expect and understand that they take social deprivation into account. That is a legitimate factor for the regions to take into account. It influences the cost and nature of health provision.
We hope that, through our White Paper reforms, better financial management and planning will avoid some of the problems in her district health authority that the hon. Lady cited. That will be done, for example, through the resource management initiative and the initiatives in the White Paper on contracting. Therefore, the hon. Member for Leicester, East should note that the renal unit of Leicester royal infirmary will not run out of cash if patient flow continues. The hon. Gentleman should welcome our proposals as they will enable money to follow patients. Hospitals will not fall into the efficiency trap, which catches so many, whereby if the consultant runs out of money activity has to stop.
I join the hon. Members for Monklands, West and for Vauxhall in paying tribute to the NHS managers for a change. They have a difficult task—

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has not answered the debate.

Mr. Freeman: I have.
Those managers have a difficult task in balancing finite resources with almost infinite demand. Although there are exceptions, they do a good job and the House should stand by them and congratulate them.

Orders of the Day — Regional Policy (Yorkshire)

Sir Marcus Fox: It is extremely encouraging at this time of night to see so many colleagues, on both sides of the House, in the Chamber bearing in mind that the television cameras are not operating. I therefore assume that the effect of regional policy on our county is of supreme importance to all of us.
First, I must declare an interest—to be safe I should do so—as I am a director of two companies that employ a few thousand people around the United Kingdom. They also employ a couple of thousand people in the Bradford area. My directorship gives me a greater ability, if I dare to say that, to speak about employment. I believe that regional policy is specifically aimed in that direction.
I do not seek to ignore high interest rates, which are so damaging to our economy. I do not want them to remain high for a day or hour longer than is necessary. However, I support the principle that to squeeze inflation out of our economy means that such high interest rates are necessary, especially if we are to return to the level of growth that has become natural under this Government. I emphasise "under this Government" as the level of growth that has been achieved in the past 11 years, and particularly in the past six years, has been far in excess of anything achieved previously.
In spite of high interest rates, the economy in my area is buoyant, and profitability has ensured that. In the past few years profitability has acted as the cushion against high interest rates. I have no doubt that other colleagues will confirm that that is so in their part of the county.
It is the luck of the draw that I have the opportunity to open the debate. I do not want to speak too long as that would deny other hon. Members the chance to participate. I want to refer to my area of Shipley and the Bradford and metropolitan district. I pay tribute to the Conservative-controlled council in Bradford, which has transformed our city since it took over. I do not want to talk about the community charge—I have already said quite enough about that—except to say that I do not accept it as it is. It is the equivalent of tablets of stone set in concrete, but there will be other occasions on which to discuss it.
The city of Bradford is the fifth largest metropolitan district in the United Kingdom and the seventh largest city. We tend to forget that. During the 1980s an increasingly large work force was drawn into the city, existing companies have expanded and many new firms have been established. Many national companies are also located in the city. I get tired of people looking at Bradford and speaking in terms of its decline. That was true in the past, but it is certainly not the case today. When one thinks of Grattan, Morrisons, Fine Art Development and the many textile and printing companies which are national names, the names speak for themselves. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) is listening, not writing.

Mr. Donald Thompson: I am writing down what my hon. Friend says.

Sir Marcus Fox: If I had to select one company that epitomised what can be done, it would be a company called Spring Ram. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley got the Prime Minister to open the first factory in November 1979. I believe that there was no roof

on it then. It manufactured baths. Two men, with considerable borrowings, moved into the area. Today, they own 11 companies, four of which make baths and sanitary ware. A third of all the baths made in the United Kingdom come from that company. It is the brand leader in the kitchen market and controls 15 per cent. of the ceramic market. It has 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom market in non-metal sinks and 25 per cent. world wide. Guess where it does its manufacturing? Thanks to regional policy, it is done in Bradford, Barnsley and Scunthorpe.
Out of 1 million companies in the United Kingdom and 100,000 quoted companies, Spring Ram is the most profitable company in Britain. It started in 1979 and its year-on-year profits have been 74 per cent. a year. It has not borrowed for five years, has £15 million in the bank, is doubling the size of its work force to 3,000 and spending £85 million in the coming year. Therefore, when people talk about the decline of manufacturing industry, they should look around and see what is happening. The numbers employed do not necessarily have anything to do with the output or profitability.
We used to call our area the West Riding of Yorkshire. What a tragedy that we do not still live in the West Riding or the East Riding or the North Riding. I am well aware under which Government those changes took place, but I still criticise them. The small, family businesses are still crucial. The cult of being one's own boss has particular attractions for many of our countrymen.
I was delighted that there was in the Budget particular appeal for savers. Many tax concessions were made to individuals, and not before time. There were tax-free arrangements for those who save and the composite rate of tax, as I think it is called—composite motions are something about which Opposition Members know—was highway robbery. It allows building societies and banks to deduct tax from interest, whether or not one is liable to it.
The threshold at which small companies have to pay a reduced level of tax has been lifted from £150,000 to £200,000. The limit for the 35 per cent. rate has been raised from £750,000 to £1 million, and the cost of financing has been made easier. We all have stories to tell about VAT. For far too long small companies have lost VAT that has been paid, even when they have been unable to collect it from their customers. I welcome the legislative changes on VAT. I am also delighted that VAT registration has been made simpler.
Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) are concerned about transport problems in the Aire valley. Life is being made impossible by the failure to complete sections three and four of the Airedale trunk road. Section three, through Bingley—the Bingley bypass—is awaiting the inspector's report. At present, traffic in Shipley is at enormously high levels. When the Bingley section is completed, the position will be horrendous.
Hence the need to bring forward a preferred route for the final section—section four. There is no reason why the consultation or inquiry could not be commenced immediately. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who has ministerial responsibility for the matter as the Minister for Roads and Traffic, is on the Government Front Bench this evening although he is not to reply to the debate. I have spoken to him about the matter on one or two occasions. I tell him, without detracting from my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is to reply, that it is my belief that there is a solution to the section four difficulty. For 20


years there has been total opposition to a route through the bottom of the valley, but the 47 groups which have aired their objections—I did not give my hon. Friend advance warning of this—have come together in agreement. It would seem that they wish to get something done. If there is consensus, I believe that we can move forward. That is possible if the opposing groups have buried the hatchet.
At the recent inquiry on section three, I understand that the Department of Transport announced that a cost-benefit analysis on revised traffic flows showed that a dual tunnel would have positive results. It would be a solution to the bottleneck in the bottom of the valley, and our environment demands it.
The improvement to roads is, however, only one solution. The growth of traffic in the area—some Opposition Members' constituencies suffer from this problem as well—means that there is a need for rail links as well. Traffic figures tell us that there is scope to take passenger traffic off the roads on to rail. I have read what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said in a recent debate on electrification. I was one of several hon. Members who were present yesterday at an instructive meeting with the passenger transport authority, the city council, the chamber of commerce and perhaps a representative from British Rail, which I know is with us on the issue. We all look forward to Bradford being linked into an electrification of the rail system. It would be of great advantage to the area.
Finally, I mention the bypass for Burley, which is in my constituency. Over 95 per cent. of the local people have wanted a bypass for years. It has been thwarted by the odd individual, but at long last the proposal is coming to fruition. Perhaps those who live on the main street of Burley will see something happening in the near future.
All of us in the county take pride in what has been achieved in the past. I am sure that what the Government have done has helped to eliminate many of the problems that existed before they took office.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on being fortunate in the ballot and enabling us to debate Yorkshire regional policy this evening. I am sure that all his Yorkshire colleagues on both sides of the House are indebted to him for providing the opportunity for advancing the Yorkshire case. It is rare now that we have the chance to do so. I can remember the days when we used to have Yorkshire debates. It is unfortunate that they are so sparse these days; we seem never to have them.
I do not want to paint a picture of entire gloom and doom in Yorkshire, but I do not want to follow the same path as the hon. Member for Shipley. I assure him that, if he represented Pontefract and Castleford or another mining community in Yorkshire, he would have a different story to tell.
The Budget offered little hope for Yorkshire and Humberside. Families in the region have lost over £67 million in child benefit because the value of the benefit has been frozen since 1987. Only families in receipt of over £275 a week have gained anything substantial from the Tory tax cuts. Yet 72 per cent. of families in Yorkshire and Humberside have weekly incomes below that sum. Many of them will have suffered a loss of income under the

Tories. Any growth in income has been concentrated on the rich and those in the south-east. I do not think that many Conservative Members would disagree with that.
Manufacturing investment in Yorkshire and Humberside has grown by 1 per cent. since 1979; in my view, that very nearly amounts to recession. Male unemployment stands at 8·6 per cent. Yet the Budget did nothing for manufacturing investment or for research and development. It also did nothing for the region's training.
The hon. Member for Shipley, understandably, failed to refer to the poll tax. The average family in Yorkshire and Humberside faces a poll tax bill 30 per cent. higher than their previous rates bill. That will create great financial difficulties in Yorkshire.
The holder of the average new mortgage in Yorkshire and Humberside, which is £10,000 less than the national average, is paying £103 more per month as a result of the increases in mortgage interest rates since July 1988—a massive £1,200 a year. The average new mortgage in the area is £29,600, and many such mortgages were taken out at an interest rate of 9·8 per cent. Initially, the owners paid £181·30 a month; they are now paying £284·90 a month. Those are some of the problems that people in Yorkshire and Humberside are experiencing.
The problems in Yorkshire's blackspots—the mining communities—were brought about by the savage rundown of the coal mining industry that has taken place since 1984. I do not want to go into the reasons why some people think that that was necessary. Conservative Members think that it was necessary on economic grounds, and I suppose that some of them would also argue in favour of an alternative fuel supply. To my mind, that is purely and simply dogma. But whatever the reasons, there has been a savage rundown of the industry. In the Wakefield area, 11,000 jobs have been lost in mining alone, and the spin-off has been significant, with about 20,000 jobs lost since the miners' strike, if we include related industries.
I shall return to the matter later, but, until recently, no assistance has been given to attract industries to my constituency to replace the jobs lost in the mining industry.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Oh.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh." Let me repeat what I said: until recently, there has been no encouragement to industry to come to the area. Year in, year out, we have made representations to different Ministers, some of whom are present. We have visited Ministers, with deputations, to try to influence them and to make the case that the Select Committee on Energy has twice argued in its reports on the coal mining industry and the privatisation of electricity. The Opposed Private Bill Committee on the Associated British Ports Bill said that, if the Government were not ready to prepare the way for alternative employment, the industry should not have been run down so rapidly.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend has given us details of the number of jobs lost in the mining industry, especially in the Wakefield district. Is he aware that about 2,000 to 3,000 jobs have been lost in other industries—in particular, in mining engineering—in the Wakefield area? Is he aware of the clear implications that that has for Britain's export potential? I have met members of British Jeffrey Diamond and Fletcher Sutcliffe Wild, now Gullick Dobson, both major exporting companies, who complain that, as a direct result of the rundown of the


British coal industry, they have difficulty in demonstrating their machinery to potential exporting countries and thus boosting Britain's export potential.

Mr. Lofthouse: I am certainly aware of the spin-off that has resulted from the rundown of the industry. The companies are in great difficulty and are no longer in a position to manufacture and supply abroad.

Mr. Conal Gregory: The hon. Gentleman is not noted for gloom. I do not know where he has been this evening, but clearly the Horlicks that he has imbibed has turned him into a prophet of doom. That cannot be in any way representative of the citizens of Pontefract. He says that there has been no Government help whatsoever for Pontefract. Either he has been sleeping or he is being mischievous. In fact, money has been poured into realising the potential of Pontefract. I mention tourism as an example. Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in Britain. The hon. Gentleman need not, by his demeanour, dismiss that. Let him look to Bradford, which, next to York, is the tourism capital of Yorkshire. The potential is there, and the money is available. If the hon. Gentleman intends to keep knocking Pontefract, when will he resign his seat?

Mr. Lofthouse: First, let me assure the hon. Gentleman that Horlicks is the strongest drink that I touch in this building.
The Castleford travel-to-work area includes Pontefract. As its status has not been changed since 1981, we have received no assistance whatsoever—not one penny. No alternative employment has been provided. The unemployment rate is now shown as about 11 per cent.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Massaged.

Mr. Lofthouse: As my hon. Friend says, the figure is massaged. Redundant mineworkers are not included, the 11,000 men in my travel-to-work area have been removed.

Mr. Gregory: Get them another job.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman says, "Get them another job."
Former Conservative Ministers who are in the Chamber tonight know full well that we have been pressing the case for many years, but without result.
I am no prophet of doom. I am simply stating facts. I refer hon. Members to a Coalfields Communities Campaign report that was issued about a week ago. I realise that it is not a Government document, or anything like that, but previous reports from the same source have not been far off the mark. That body forecasts that, by 1995, the number of men in the mining industry will have fallen to 30,000. That suggests that many more pits will close.
Indeed, on 16 March the Coal Board issued a press release preparing the way for this. The redundancy terms are to be made a little more attractive. The Coal Board tells us that the reason for that is that further restructuring is necessary. Why is further restructuring necessary? It is because of the privatisation of electricity. We know that, within the next three years, the demand from the electricity industry will have gone down to 60 million tonnes. That is

why there is to be a further rundown in the mining industry. But still there is no sign of Government help for these communities.
I said earlier that we had seen a chink of light. In the first movement that we have seen since 1984, a Japanese company decided to invest in my constituency. That investment will provide 1,200 jobs. I was a member of the deputation that met the Minister for Industry, who is on the Government Front Bench tonight. I was very grateful to him for meeting us. He was very pleasant and very sympathetic, but he could not give us any money. Wakefield, being the solid Yorkshire area that it is, had to look after itself. We persuaded the Japanese to come, but we cannot replace the jobs that we have lost without some Government financial assistance. It is time that the Government recognised that. There have been problems about regional area status. I accept that it is not all doom and gloom in Yorkshire as it is in the areas that I represent, but I can sincerely say that what I say about my area and its mining communities is the truth. It is rather noticeable that the Yorkshire constituencies with big Labour majorities get little help.
The Government took the decision to run down the mining industry—no one else—and they have an obligation to provide employment in those communities. The average age of the present work force in the coal industry is 34 and they will not be cushioned by weekly payments as the men over 50 were after 1984. Those young men have no future. Many of them were encouraged to purchase their council homes, and they were keen to do so. They now face a future with mortgages round their necks, their jobs down the Swanee. They cannot pay their way, and the Government have an obligation to those Yorkshire miners who have never let the country down in its hour of need and never will, despite all the turmoil. The Government should at least give serious consideration to putting Wakefield and the Castleford travel-to-work area into an intermediate area zone as soon as possible. Failing that, they should find some other way.
We are fortunate, with the Government's assistance, to have been included in one of the EEC's regional programmes, objective 2 I think it is called, and the RECHAR scheme. With some Government pressure on the EEC, we hope to see a chink of daylight in the form of financial aid. I hope that the Minister will take note of what I have said and will do all he can to assist us.

Mr. Donald Thompson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on being successful in the ballot and gaining such an early debate. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on the Front Bench. He looks after the northern areas in Yorkshire very well, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) works hard for Yorkshire and for Yorkshire Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: That is daft—he works against Labour Members.

Mr. Thompson: As usual, the hon. Gentleman knows not what he talks about.
On Friday, I shall be welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to my constituency. He looks after the development commission


which spends a great deal of money in the upper Calder Valley—a prosperous area with 4 per cent. unemployment or less.
Tonight I shall mention four topics which concern all Yorkshire Members—pylons, the canals, the moors and new industry. Various proposals to replace pylons which march across our moors are imminent. The pylons were put in place in the 1950s and 1960s and are ready for replacement. My constituents are anxious that, wherever possible and reasonable, the pylons should no longer march across the moors. The lines should be buried beneath them—for no other reason than that it is sensible and environmentally efficient. Cost-efficiency is one thing, but environmental efficiency is another. The new pylons would be in place for some 40 years, so if we renew the lines, they may as well go underground as they do in towns and cities such as London, Bradford and Brighouse.
I have had sensible discussions with people in the electricity industry and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who has a quasi-ministerial responsibility for this matter, and I know that he has listened to what I have said.
The pylons march across the moors which connect our Yorkshire constituencies. While I am on the subject of moors, I will mention opencast mining. I hope that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who has just made a brief speech, will not intervene—I know that the subject is dear to his heart.
Many of the old coal workings on the moors are becoming viable again as opencast mines, but not solely as opencast mines. Opencast sites can also be used for infill with industrial and other sorts of waste.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Imported toxic waste.

Mr. Lofthouse: The waste has to go somewhere. The industries of south Yorkshire, north Yorkshire and the west riding produce it. It should not go under the moors, as that would destroy their geology and geography. Waste has been sympathetically disposed of in other parts of my constituency.
Todmorden moor has some derelict coal workings and is a likely subject for opencast mining and the tipping of waste. The local Calderdale council has been lured to tidy up areas of dereliction by planning trade-offs and has been talking to various companies about waste disposal and opencast mining for a long time. The coal will be produced as a by-product. If Calderdale council rejects the plan that it has been discussing for the past two years, will the Minister give special consideration to the areas of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency and in all the Yorkshire constituencies?
Rochdale canal is also in my constituency. There is a blockage at Sowerby Bridge on the canal, which inhibits navigation throughout the region and throughout the United Kingdom. To make a deliberate pun, millions of pounds have been poured into the Rochdale canal by the Government and by the development commission to make it navigable for pleasure boats and other craft. That has led to development alongside the canal by such companies as Tenterfields in my constituency, where two young men have built up a business park using their own money.
If my right hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment can see their way to help Calderdale council with regional aid to eradicate the blockage at Sowerby Bridge, we shall have a feature that people in

constituencies throughout Yorkshire can enjoy and use. It will also enhance the tourist potential of the area, which I know is dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory).
I heard all that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford said about new industries. In my constituency the old, traditional industries have reshaped themselves and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, the family industries have come through very well. New industries are also starting.
The industry that is now burgeoning and expanding, however, is the much-maligned financial services industry. The Halifax building society, the Pennine insurance company and others are attracting numerous new workers and jobs, and could be said to base their activities on northern thrift. The Haifax wants to create 1,200 new jobs on the edge of my constituency, but the local authority is quibbling about a road scheme which will cost the building society between £2 million and £4 million.
Yorkshire Members often go to see the Minister to ask for money to develop various activities in the area. When a new, expanding industry which will be of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and Europe wishes to place 1,200 jobs in its home base in Yorkshire and the local authority quibbles about mending roads—something that it should have done many years ago—I despair. When once the authority would have been on its knees begging for £2 million to get those jobs to its area, now it is behaving in what I consider to be a most peculiar way.
We have a fine initiative at Lowfield, in my constituency. A large amount of Government money is going into opening up an area of flatland—only about 50 acres, which is not considered much in other parts of the country, but which in my constituency is very valuable—and I thank the Government for that. The development must be carried out sensitively so as to enhance Elland and its environment rather than damning it.
I could say much more, but I will content myself with thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley again for securing the debate.

Mr. Hardy: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), not least because he proposed a subterranean activity. I accept that it only involved electric cables, but it is nevertheless reassuring that Conservative Members are worried about what takes place underground. It is about time that that interest developed.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) for stimulating interest in the debate. I noted the elegance with which he declared his interest and talked about employing thousands in our region. Let me point out, however, that many of the thousands in our region are very badly paid, and that one of the problems is low purchasing power. If Conservative Members develop their interests, I hope that as the years unfold they will be able to increase the wages that they pay to the employees in their various companies.
Starting a small business is difficult. There are exceptions—some have managed to achieve despite all the difficulties, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out—but having less than average purchasing power makes it more difficult for small firms to succeed in our region than in better-off areas.

Mr. Cryer: Would not that purchasing power have been enhanced if the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill, which cut out regional development grant aid to such areas as Yorkshire and Humberside, had not been given its Second Reading on 25 January 1988? Does that not make Conservative Members' comments sound rather hollow, especially when we know that they all voted to cut such aid by supporting the Bill?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend has anticipated my next point. Conservative Members, who certainly have an interest in the region, did not serve that interest effectively when they supported the Government's various steps to reduce dramatically the value of the regional and selective assistance that was in place before they took office in 1979.
Fifteen years ago—the Minister cannot contradict this, nor, I think, can his hon. Friends—the Department of Trade and Industry took the view that Yorkshire's problems would be resolved within our own county. The economic problems that we faced then were much less severe. Many of us felt that the internal generation of investment and wealth would help us largely, if not entirely, to succeed. Unfortunately, the need now is much more acute than we could possibly have envisaged 10 or 15 years ago.
I do not have time to list all the problems that we face. Three quarters of Yorkshire's population are worse off today than they were in 1979. Owner-occupiers are paying, on average, £100 a month more in mortgage interest. Conservative Members have had the audacity to suggest that they are saving money. The vast majority of people in Yorkshire cannot afford to save £1,800 a year under the TESSA scheme, or to invest in personal equity plans. Yorkshire is well down the road towards impoverishment as a result of this Government's policies.
The metropolitan borough of Rotherham has received inquiries about industrial development. All of them during the last two years have been for green field, green belt sites. My constituents, and those in neighbouring constituencies, are desperately concerned about green belt development. The local authority is in real difficulty. It needs to attract investment in order to create jobs, but the only inquiries of any consequence throughout that period have been for green belt sites.
Largely due to the excessive number of colliery closures, there are thousands of acres of derelict land in the borough. All that Conservative Members are interested in is getting rid of them quickly. Our concern is to make that derelict land decent again. Unfortunately, the allocation of money for the clearance of dereliction is absolutely disgraceful. The main scheme in Yorkshire is in Rotherham, but there ought to be 10 or 20 schemes every year on that scale. While 1,000 acres in the Dearne valley remain derelict, there is no cause for congratulation. That is not the only area of dereliction in the county. The increase in dereliction during the past five years has been of criminal proportions.
I hope that I do the hon. Member for Calder Valley no disservice when I say that he suggested that our area could be used for the deposit of waste. There is an old county song about a Yorkshireman who did not wear his hat on Ilkley moor catching his death of cold. I have a feeling that there are those who would like to bring toxic waste to many areas in Yorkshire. The people of Yorkshire would die then not of cold but of the kind of toxicity that was brought into my constituency, improperly and unlawfully,

almost a year ago. And it is still there. It is a tribute not merely to dereliction; it is also a tribute to the inadequacy of the law as a result of the Government's decision to keep industry at arm's length and to allow free market forces to play havoc with common sense and blight areas such as mine.
I am glad that we have had this opportunity to debate the matter. The Minister's forebear, Lord Hailsham, was deeply moved about unemployment in the north-east. It will be recalled that he rang a bell to express his indignation. The causes that we are espousing tonight demand not a little hand bell but a veritable carillon of loudly clanging bells to remind the Government of the damage that they have done to areas such as mine.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on initiating this debate, because Yorkshire is one of the most successful regions in Britain under Conservative Administration—[Interruption.]—and I shall give facts and figures to prove it. Although Opposition Members are few in number, they are, as usual, vocal and they might care for some home truths.
The number of new businesses in the United Kingdom expanded on average by 1,500 a week in 1989, compared with 1,200 a week in 1988. In the last year of the last Labour Government—probably the last year ever of any Labour Government—6,000 more businesses closed than opened. In 1988, 64,000 more opened than closed.
In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, 11,900 new businesses were registered in 1980, the first year for which figures are available. That increased to 13,700 in 1983, the year I was elected, and by 1988 the number had surged, again under the Conservatives, to 16,900. So the net rise in that time was from 900 in 1980 to 4,000 in 1988. That was success indeed, and most embarrassing for the Opposition.
Investment has also been rising. Government expenditure on fixed assets—on replacement of or addition to the stock of fixed assets, excluding expenditure on maintenance and repairs—in the region rose from £346 million in 1979 to £465 million in 1983 and to £606 million in 1987. For industry as a whole for those three years, it rose from £1,981 million to £2,385 million to £3,288 million. That covered agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy water supply, manufacturing transport and communications. It excluded air and sea transport, dwellings and the service sector.
The population of the region, like that of the rest of the United Kingdom, is rising. In 1979, there were 1·808 million households in the region. By 1988, the figure had increased to 1·924 million. The number of housing starts has also been on the rise. In 1980, there were 12,829 starts in the region. In 1989, there were 15,800. I would not like to be a Labour candidate in the region at the next general election trying to explain away that success story. In York ·I mention this in the unlikely event that there is a Socialist candidate—in 1979, 228 new properties were recorded, 478 in 1983 and 536 in 1987.
There is falling unemployment in the area, as one would expect, improved pupil-teacher ratios in primary and secondary schools and shorter hospital waiting lists. It is a good picture for the heart of the white rose county.
Any visitor to York can see beyond the tourism highlights to the industries of confectionery, the railways


and insurance. But all those sectors are subject to the unified business rate, and I wish to discuss the problem that faces Yorkshire in general and York in particular in that connection.

Mr. Cryer: Ah.

Mr. Gregory: It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman, who has joined us for this part of the debate, although he was not here at the start.
The major problems result from valuation and revaluation. That should have been undertaken by the Socialist Administration in 1968. They pledged to revalue properties at that date, but, not for the first time, that Administration did not keep their pledge, and that was the start of the difficulties that we now face in north Yorkshire. The Conservatives postponed, as they announced, a radical alternative to commercial rates—the unified business rate.
At the time of the last revaluation—1973–74—the commercial rates in York were 39·9p in the pound. Today, they are £2·557, higher than they need be if there was competitive tendering throughout all services. To date, York has not gone the way of other more progressive councils such as Wandsworth, which has put 17 services out to competitive tender. The struggling and shouting Socialists on York city council have put the minimum number out, although the figure would have been lower if they had put more services out to competitive tender. That is, perhaps, a subject for another occasion.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gregory: From April, the rate is set at a far lower figure of 34·8p in the pound, but on substantial revaluations. That is hard on family businesses. It is important to retain a good mix of businesses. An example is Kilvington's of Stonegate, founded in 1838 by George Kilvington, a craftsman in wire. It is a typical family business which is still selling pet food as well as wirework in those premises. Up the road, we have lovely porcelain shops and jewellery shops. Transitional relief will help such companies over five years, and no property will face a rise of more than 15 per cent. plus inflation each year if the rateable value is less than £10,000 or 20 per cent. plus inflation above that level.
However, we need to retain small family businesses, because they are the backbone of the north Yorkshire economy. Businesses pay £2 billion more to local authorities than the value of the services they receive. York has its strength in such family businesses and it makes sense to differentiate between such shops and the branches of national chains which have no loyalty to the city.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gregory: Part of the problem arises from the fact that there has been no revaluation for 17 years.

Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gregory: Those involved in the commercial sector are well aware of the considerable rises of rental values in that time. I shall give some examples to the House. In Colliergate in 1972, a typical rent was only £1,500, whereas today, a person renting those premises could expect to pay £34,000. In the Shambles in 1973, rents were £5,500. I am not sure whether the Socialist council wishes to rename

that street Mandela street, as one scurrilous report has suggested. Those rents will now rise to £22,000. Petergate rents were £1,500 in 1973; today they are £70,000. A typical shop in Coney street had a rental value in 1973 of £7,000; today the figure is £152,000.
Clearly such market forces for rents—and various groups, especially the pension funds that have purchased such properties, appreciate this—are a reflection in certain respects of Labour's failure to revalue the rents [Interruption.]—and there has been a great deal of catching up to do. The new transitional rate means that a typical city-centre shop that had expected to pay £11,136 in rates with the new valuation will now pay between £3,000 and £3,874 next year. I hope that, as a result, York's rich mix of shops will continue for resident and visitor alike.
However, the Inland Revenue valuation officer has not fully taken into account the growth in outer-city shopping, which is only just starting. Any visitor to York will see the equivalent of American-style shopping malls and, until recently, no effective competition in the city centre. That will hit cities such as York. Few shops now sell exclusive, high-profit-margin goods such as those in Helmsley, Pocklington and the suburbs of Leeds.
I suggest—I hope that the Minister will respond to this specific point—a sliding scale for the uniform business rate, as with corporation tax. Under corporation tax, if a retailer's profits are under £150,000, he currently pays 25 per cent. Between £150,000 and £650,000, there could be a sliding scale between 25 per cent. and 35 per cent. If a similar scheme were in force for York, the small businesses, not only of Yorkshire but throughout the country, would benefit enormously and ensure that shoppers continued to enjoy a wide range of merchandise. Clearly, only a caring Conservative Government and a return to a Conservative administration in the city of York will ensure that city's future prosperity.

Mr. Allen McKay: Yorkshire is large, complex and different—different in its many aspects and different in its representation. I am sure that no hon. Member would not wish the best for Yorkshire. We have to recognise its highlights and its difficulties, and we shall not overcome its problems easily. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) for initiating this debate: it is time that we had more debates on Yorkshire.
I see that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) is in his place. When he was Minister I was grateful for the help that he gave to a firm in my constituency, Shaw Carpets. He helped it to survive and it is one of the greatest successes in manufacturing industry. I wish that he was still the Minister, because we could do with a few more such help-outs.
The area of south Yorkshire that I represent probably has one of the highest unemployment rates outside Northern Ireland—14·1 per cent. male unemployment and 5·9 per cent. female unemployment—and, against all trends, it is rising. When we talk about things going well in industry, we tend to forget those areas where things are not going too well. We need the Government to recognise those difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) said that, because of the


destruction of the base of manufacturing industry in our area—mining, steel and engineering—there are tremendous difficulties. My local authority is taking areas out of the green belt, which I have fully supported, and the roof has fallen in because people have quite naturally objected to this. But we have a great deal of derelict land, and in our area, unlike the rest of the country, the acreage is increasing. We need more help poured into it so that we can use it for green belt purposes. If we take areas of green belt land for industrial purposes, we must replace them by turning derelict land into green belt areas.
We are very lucky in that we have made a breakthrough with Japanese firms such as Seiko with Government help and local authority initiative and the industrial willingness of people at Dodworth in my constituency. This has meant the creation of 400 high-tech jobs. Rather than penalise local government, as they are doing, the Government should recognise this achievement and the efforts that the local authorities are making in this area.
I turn briefly to the problem of possible poll tax capping. The Government's standard spending assessment for my local authority is way out. There is nothing in the assessment that fits the local authority. For many years under Conservative and Labour Governments the assessment of local authority expenditure in my area and the calculation of grant have been wrong. When we had a base industry, mining, to cushion the effect, that was fine, but mining has disappeared. The 10 collieries which were operating in my constituency six years ago have closed. Therefore, the spending power in the local economy from those collieries has gone. The rating assessment has gone as well, but that has not been fully compensated for.
In the standard spending assessment the Government have not taken into account the £3·5 million which it will cost to bring in the poll tax; the local authority will have to pay the larger part of that. The Government have not allowed for the £6 million in grants that will not be paid or for the inflation rate. That means that the Government assessment of £222 is way out and that the local authority has had to bring in a poll tax of £329.
As the local authority is likely to be poll tax capped, what will it mean? In my area nursery schools will close because they are a non-statutory provision. Many other non-statutory provisions will also have to go. In an area which we are trying to rejuvenate and prepare for 1992, education is of prime importance. Part of the education system is nursery education. In the early years the foundation is laid for the secondary years. Therefore, it would be sacrilege to impose upon the local authority the necessity to close nursery schools which have taken 10 years to develop.
As regards industry, we are likely to lose in the next three weeks the firm of Corah, which provides 300 female jobs. Because of a merger at David Brown's we are likely to lose another 150 jobs. Against all national trends, our unemployment rate is getting worse.
It is not all doom and gloom because there is light on the horizon, but we do not want Government policies and Government ideas round our neck. By all means let central Government determine what they will give local government. There is no quarrel with that. Our quarrel with central Government is over the fact that they will not

allow us to determine our future. The local authority should consult the people about what they want. We do not want central Government interfering.
Yorkshire and Humberside is a proud region. Along with Scotland, we will have devolution if the Government do not leave us alone. We will determine our own future, whatever the Government want.

Sir Giles Shaw: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and to thank him for his reference to a problem which occurred some years ago.
It is typical of the debate that there are areas in our great county which have considerable difficulties, and none more so than the areas in which the great coal and steel industries were once the main and possibly only sources of employment. I think particularly of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) when I recall the problem of the boundaries of assisted areas. The matter of greatest difficulty, whether one was in government or in opposition, was the redrawing of the map every two years as one problem succeeded another. I remind the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) of the huge input of cash, largely from the European Community, to assist the declining steel and coal areas. That must be added to the major changes that have been funded in infrastructure investment. I agree that it was a long time before we managed to persuade Mr. Ian MacGregor to head the British coal industry. That happened far too late in view of the declining prospects of the industry. I fully recognise that and apologise for it.
We are talking about Yorkshire in the round and about the problems of regional aid in relation to Yorkshire. Large areas of Yorkshire are not covered by regional aid and do not deserve to be so covered. I am thinking of the city of Leeds and of my constituency of Pudsey, in so far as Pudsey is within the city of Leeds. That is not and never has been an assisted area, and rightly so in view of its diversity of employment and its potential for growth and for attracting the new industries that have moved into the metropolitan area. In fairly recent times Leeds has obtained an urban development corporation to deal with a portion of the derelict area of the city centre, alongside the canal, where there used to be factories which have long since closed. That too is starting to make a major contribution.
We are also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry who, no doubt, has assisted in the redeployment of another 2,000 or more jobs from within the Civil Service deployment unit, which are now coming to Leeds with the Departments of Social Security and Health. Those are two recent and welcome developments.
I refer briefly to two other aspects that concern me. Both can be classified as regional policies but both are national in origin. I refer first to the Channel tunnel and to its consequences for railway development in the north of England. I am far from satisfied that that operation is being planned correctly. I am also far from satisfied that the commitment to the northern links will be built to a time and cost that will enable us in the north to share in the developments of 1992.
I am far from satisfied that the funding arrangements for the Channel tunnel will survive the pressures put upon


them. I take a critical view of the absence, so far, of public funding for a portion of that project. If, as seems possible, the next attempt at a private sector tranche of funding fails, I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will do his bit to insist that public sector funding is considered as the correct solution to that problem.
We must have correct and rapid goods transit to the north. I want to put in a plea for the transit station and depot to be at Stourton on the outskirts of Leeds. As one Opposition Member—bless him—now recognises, that is the natural place to site it. I am sorry that I cannot be persuaded to consider the Doncaster alternative, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and our hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), who is sitting next to him on the Treasury Bench, might also consider the transport advantages of the Stourton turn-off for the international freight service.
I make no apology for referring now to the wool textile industry. It would be wrong for a debate on Yorkshire to conclude without reference being made to the vital importance still of the wool textile industry to our economy and the vital importance to that industry of a successful and progressive transfer from the multi-fibre arrangement to the general agreement on tariffs and trade. That was the burden of our debate some months ago and of the message that we left with my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne when we went to see him in another place. It is crucial that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham ensures that the arrangements to transfer the MFA over a period into an orderly world textile regime which is funded by GATT and founded within that system is an essential part of the future of the textile industry in Yorkshire. I trust that careful note will be taken of that element tonight.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall take only a few minutes because others wish to speak. The number of hon. Members who wish to speak shows the wisdom of allocating three hours to any future debate on Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: This debate is one and a half hours.

Mr. Cryer: I want the next debate to be three hours, not one and a half hours. There was a time when the Consolidated Fund—[Interruption.] I am talking to the Whip, who is shouting out from a sedentary position. I am merely pointing out that we want more time, not less. The amount of time allocated is decided by Mr. Speaker. I do not like the position and I make a plea for more time in the future. I am spending an unnecessary amount of time doing that so as to make the position clear to the Minister.
Yorkshire and Humberside has suffered under the Tories. To repeat points made already, we have lost money through the poll tax which will result in a bill 30 per cent. higher than the rates bill for the average family in Yorkshire. We have lost almost £80 million through the freezing of child benefit in an area where there is much social deprivation and a great need for child benefit, which goes direct to the family and the children.
Tax cuts have benefited only a tiny wealthy elite. In manufacturing industry, which is vital to the future of Yorkshire and Humberside, and indeed the rest of the United Kingdom, investment has grown by only 1 per

cent. since 1979. I shall not dwell on the increase in mortgage charges to 15 per cent. as a result of the Government's economic policies.
I emphasise the importance of the textile industry. In Bradford, of which I represent the south side, 14,000 jobs depend directly on textiles. Another 14,000 at least depend on the industry indirectly. We want the multi-fibre arrangement to be renewed. We want any changes in the MFA resulting in a takeover by GATT rules to be made in an orderly fashion, as Silberston recommended. The Minister should note that Silberston said that as many as 33,000 jobs could be lost if the MFA was not renewed. The industry believes that the figure could be nearer 100,000.
As the textile industry is a large water user, the region also faces penalties because of the increase in water charges. That could mean that more jobs will be lost in Yorkshire and Humberside. I hope that the Minister will consider what both the employers and the trade unions in the Yorkshire textile industry want. They want grant aid to make more efficient use of water. The industry's investment capacity is limited. Increases in water charges are not its fault. It is a large user of water. I suggest that it would make environmental sense, too, to have better water utilisation facilities in the textile industry.
Since 1979 when the Government came to power, 2 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry. Nearly 200,000 of them were in Yorkshire and Humberside. That trend must be reversed in the future, and I guess that that will be done only with the advent of a Labour Government at the next general election.
I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) when he opened the debate that we need a shift from roads to rail in the region. This comes in a week when we have had the formal announcement of the closure of the Wortley Curve, which will remove direct rail access to Bradford. From now on, all trains will have to go through Leeds. There has also been a meeting of the west Yorkshire passenger transport executive. I know that this is not the direct responsibility of the Minister, but we want the railway between Bradford and Leeds to be electrified. I should like both the Aire valley route and the route through Pudsey to be electrified. It would mean a speedier, more efficient and better service.
In Yorkshire and Humberside, rail passenger transport has grown. Trains are overcrowded and uncomfortable and passengers are carried in unacceptable conditions. We need more investment. I hope that the PTA obtains authority to borrow £50 million. I would like to see grant aid from the Government to make sure that the investment goes ahead. It is environmentally sound, it will benefit Yorkshire and Humberside and it will help to create jobs. Jobs for the future are a vital component of success for Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope: I shall be brief as I know that this debate is drawing to a close.
It is symptomatic of the power and influence of Yorkshire that hon. Members on both sides of the House have done much to persuade Government of the need to consider always what is best for Yorkshire. The initiative taken by the present Government, especially in certain parts of Yorkshire—for example, Chapeltown in my constituency—are welcome. The pump-priming effect of


the work of the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the task force operations is something of which I am extremely proud—as we all should be.
The other day I was involved in the opening of a nursery school in Chapeltown, which had been helped with £76,000 of aid from our task force operation. With the full co-operation of charities and commercial organisations, in partnership with the local authority in Leeds, that venture, in common with others in the area, will be an enormous success. That aid, coupled with yesterday's announcement of £5·4 million for Leeds under the urban programme, demonstrates the Government's commitment to the city and to Yorkshire.
In many ways, Yorkshire can look after itself, and many other parts of the country look to it with great envy. Leeds is the undoubted capital of the north. The prosperity of the financial services in that city is legion.
The continuing success of manufacturing, the excellence of the local beers, the success of the textile industry and its on-going development and the commitment and interest of local politicians and politicians at Westminster guarantee the continued success of the region. That is thanks to the Government's policies and the hard work of the region's representatives.

Mr. Richard Caborn: In common with other hon. Members, I thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) for introducing the debate, which has been worth while. There has been agreement across the Floor about the Channel tunnel and sections 40 and 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. No doubt Conservative Members will support us when we seek to abolish section 42—we shall be pleased to see them in the Lobby with us.
The debate has been about regional policy and I would be remiss if I did not say that the Labour party is extremely concerned about the structural weaknesses in Yorkshire and in the northern region. There is ever-increasing evidence that, with the advent of 1992, we shall face some serious problems. Those problems must be seen against the present background of a reduction in support for the regions.
It is difficult to discover the Government's regional policy, as they have been withdrawing from the regions ever since they came to power. That withdrawal is now costing Yorkshire about £47 million per year. [Interruption.] Reductions in the regional development grant and regional selective assistance have cost Yorkshire £47 million a year in the past 10 years. Government funding is set to continue to decline. On top of that, support for research and development and training has been cut, as has support for our transport infrastructure. All that shows that the Government have abrogated responsibility for supporting the regions.
If one compares our regions with those of our European counterparts, it is clear from any economic indicator—gross domestic product per capita or real economic growth—that our regions fair badly. Let us compare the English regions with the lander of Germany. The very best English region, the south-east, does not compare with the worst lander. All the English regions, not just Yorkshire, are in the third division.
Some revealing figures on state aids have been published recently by the Community. The Community has considered not public expenditure, but public investment. If one excludes steel and shipbuilding and considers manufacturing, the state aid per head for that industry across the Community is £1,050. In the United Kingdom it is £448, in Germany it is about £550. That shows the decline that has taken place. If we are to play on a level playing field, let us have that level playing field.
It is no good the Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, running round carping about it. He must do something about it. If the average investment per person in manufacturing is £1,050, and the level in the United Kingdom is £448 per head, there is a major discrepancy. This Government's withdrawal of the grant regimes has made it difficult for our manufacturing industries to compete. That has been made more difficult by the high interest rates and high inflation. That is why we have a £20 billion trade deficit.
It gives me no pleasure to refer to the Louvain report, which was carried out by the European Commission to consider the rundown of industrial regions in the Community. Strathclyde and south Yorkshire were two of the regions considered, and on almost every count we were at the bottom of the league. It was a most depressing report. I do not have time to go into it this evening, but it is compelling reading, and it shows the structural weaknesses for which I do not blame just this Administration. Over a period of recent history, structural weaknesses have appeared in this country. Our technology, infrastructure and decision-making centres are behind those other industrial regions in the EC. The report said that south Yorkshire had become marginalised.
We should take heed of such information, which is objectively produced. The Commission was right to commission that report and show the problems that we face. We have not relaxed in south Yorkshire, or in Yorkshire in general, and, based on that report, an outline of regeneration strategy for south Yorkshire, hopefully developing to the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside, has been undertaken. Those developments and discussions taking place at present are to try to start rectifying some of the structural weaknesses with intervention and structural planning.
Our problem is a Government who are ideologically based, have objections to local authorities, and will not intervene, but want to parachute in resources. While I do not want to knock urban development corporations or task forces, it is interesting to read the Audit Commission's report on urban regeneration and economic development, which states that we have a patchwork quilt of aids which nobody can understand and which mitigates against any development of economic growth. I ask the Minister, for about the third time, if he will make time to debate that report, together with the reports on urban development corporations from the Select Committee on Employment and the Public Accounts Committee.
This evening's debate has been good. It is unfortunate that we have not dealt with the issues entirely at regional level, but many hon. Members have brought in problems involving their constituencies. Unless we heed the advice that is being given and consider seriously reports such as the Audit Commission's, Louvain and many others available to us and have some strategic planning for our regions, the advent of 1992 will make a difficult position


much more serious. I hope that, when he replies to this debate, the Minister will at least give us a little light at the end of the tunnel and show that he will take the subject more seriously than he has done in the past.

Mr. Gary Waller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me a moment or two to contribute to this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) spoke about the uniform business rate, which is particularly helpful to Yorkshire and Humberside. We benefit as a region to the tune of 21 per cent. Before revaluation, the rate bill for our region was £710 million; it is being reduced by £150 million. Our only regret is that we shall not see all the benefit at once. It is a great pity that the change is being phased. There are firms that will pay more, but the Government cannot be held responsible for changes in market conditions. The region will benefit, and that will make a great difference to regional policy.
The change to the uniform business rate is helpful. There have long been complaints that local authorities unfairly increase business rates and that the firms which have had to pay the increased bills had no opportunity of expressing their verdict via the ballot box. The new system protects businesses from that form of exploitation, and that has been widely welcomed. It is especially important that the legislation guarantees that the increase from one year to the next will not be greater than the current rate of general inflation. The change to the uniform business rate and revaluation has been welcomed throughout the region, and I hope that no one will lose sight of that fact.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): In the five minutes of the debate that are available to me, I shall not be able to do justice to all the matters that have been raised in the debate.
Like other hon. Members, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) on initiating the debate. I was entirely in agreement with the way in which he opened the debate, which was to stress the buoyant nature of the economy in Yorkshire and Humberside and to attribute much of that buoyancy to Government policy. My hon. Friend has great experience of the area and what he says carries considerable weight. His support of the Budget provisions, especially in so far as they relate to VAT changes and to reductions in the corporation tax burden on smaller businesses, was especially apposite.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Pontefract and

Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) referred to Pioneer going to Wakefield and I much appreciated the meeting that we had to discuss it. That enables me to make a much more general point but one that I think is worth drawing to the attention of the House. It is wrong to say that the Government do not have a regional policy. In fact, we have an extremely effective one. That is one of the reasons why we secure for the United Kingdom about one third of all Japanese investment in Europe. It is also one of the reasons why we gain a substantial proportion of United States investment in Europe.
Opposition Members want us to return to something like the old regional development grant system, but that would be preposterous. The RDG was automatic and took no account of the relevant economic criteria that come to mind. The policy of regional selective assistance has been of extreme benefit to Yorkshire and Humberside. I shall give some relevant figures. Between 1 May 1979 and 28 February 1990—I like to be precise—in Yorkshire and Humberside there have been 1,308 offers of assistance. The value of that assistance is £144 million. The projects to which the offers related were worth £1,543 million. The offers of RSA are likely to create about 48,000 jobs and to safeguard about 30,000. That is a remarkable achievement and a testimony to Government regional policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) made some extremely important remarks about the environment. They are primarily matters for my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, but I shall ensure that they are made aware of what he said. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the considerable stress that is placed on new industries, and especially financial services. The substantial increase in employment in the financial services sector in Yorkshire is one of the most remarkable transformations to have happened recently. That is especially true of Leeds.
Speaking of Leeds, it was especially pleasing to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), one of my most distinguished predecessors. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) said about the contribution that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey made to the region. Understandably, my hon. Friend dwelt on the textile question and emphasised the importance of securing proper safeguards when the multi-fibre arrangement is brought back into the general agreement on tariffs and trade. That is entirely right. When the MFA is brought back into GATT, it is important that proper safeguards are introduced, that a sufficient transitional period is provided for, and that we address the questions that will then arise.

Orders of the Day — Transport (London)

Mr. Nigel Spearing: This is a notable day for London. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Transport made what I believe will prove to be a turning-point statement in the history of transport and, indeed, strategic planning in our capital city. I hope that it will bring to an end nearly 25 years of controversy on the subject of major road building in London.
In 1973, the Greater London council elections were fought largely on the issue of the ringways—the then motorway box. A cartoon in The Guardian showed a large centipede-like creature—representing a motorway—crunching up houses and gardens but being killed by an insecticide spray with "Ballot Box" written on it. That was the issue at the election. This afternoon's statement was the result of the majority party of what remains of the GLC—in effect, London Members—persuading their Government that the public would not put up with the proposals, which ostensibly came from consultants but which really came from the Department of Transport. The Minister for Roads and Traffic shakes his head, but it is unlikely that a request for the consultants would otherwise have been made.
In the old days, the GLC professional transport planners would have been asked to provide green schemes for the GLC committees to discuss. That did not happen in this case. The expenditure of large sums of public money was involved and we now know the result. The tragedy is that, having now accepted a policy of bulk public transport in London, with necessary road engineering and supplementary travel by private car, the Government find that they have destroyed the only agency that was capable of putting such a balance into effect. We must start from scratch.
I hope to draw to the attention of the House some of the issues which the Government must examine—and which, alas, this House must examine because we have no other democratic London-wide assembly. There are more London Members than Scottish Members, and this is the only place where we can debate such matters.
The demise of the GLC meant the end of proper strategic planning in London. Although the road proposals have been defeated, there is no proper strategic planning. The Government must do something about that. For Canary wharf, there was no public inquiry and no statutory procedure other than a private railway Bill. It is the lack of strategic planning in London which has caused the crop of private Bills that has delayed the legitimate business of the House. The Redbridge London Borough Council Bill may not sound like a planning Bill, but it deals with the expansion of retail marketing. The GLC had a plan to integrate industry, retail outlets, places for people to live, and places for people to work. It was a coherent strategy. Without that, everything is up for grabs. Those who want office development or retail areas will try, by hook or by crook, to get them.
Officially, the strategic plan for London now consists of the strategic plans for all the boroughs shoved together like a lot of jigsaw pieces. That is no good for any city, let alone the capital of the United Kingdom, but it is what the Government have produced. It is little wonder that even developers are saying that the Government have got it wrong. The Guardian yesterday carried the headline:

Private sector snub for rail cash hopes".
The article quotes Stanhope Properties, a well-known development company, as having said:
The Government seems to be waiting for the hidden hand of the market to solve its problems, instead of producing a framework by which the public sector and private sector can work together to provide the solution.
Stanhope Properties say that this has to change, yet they are the sort of people whom the Government profess to represent. Even the developers are saying that there must be a proper structure to deal with these matters.
In the old days, when I was a co-opted member of the GLC planning and highways committee, my colleagues and I complained that planning permission was put in a drawer and used as currency. That was pretty bad, but at least there was some sort of coherent planning—coherent because it was based on a London-wide scheme. We must get back to that. The Government, having decided their transport strategy, have a responsibility to get on with the job.
I wish to deal quite rapidly with one or two issues in this context. I shall point out the Government's shortcomings and what must be done to rectify them. I assure the Minister that I should be saying the same things even if the Government were of my own party. Indeed, national Governments have not performed very well in respect of the matters that I want to draw to the attention of the House.
First, there is the perennial problem of traffic congestion in London. Year after year, for the past 50 or 60 years, people have been saying that London is grinding to a halt. In a leading article in The Times not long ago, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, a former Home Secretary, said that one of his most difficult tasks had been dealing with traffic congestion in London. The point is that any road space available will fill up. That is partly why a roads policy such as was suggested by the Government would not work and they have realised that.
We must make the best use of the road space that is available. On 13 January 1989, at column 795 of the Official Report, I was told in a written answer that no records were kept of the reasons for, or incidence of, traffic congestion in London. We all know that specific things cause abnormal hold-ups. On 12 March 1990, in reply to another question, I was told that the police were considering whether it would be worth noting down the major incidents of congestion in London and, where known, the reasons for them.
That is remarkable. Many millions of pounds are spent on the traffic department of the Metropolitan police, which is funded by the Home Office. A whole section of that traffic department deals with London roads, yet the people there do not think it worth while to note major incidents of congestion, which some of us know very well. That is a stupid and misleading policy because there will always be congestion. Most of them will be caused by readily apprehensible reasons—road repairs, accidents, vehicle breakdowns, water or gas main bursts or failures, traffic light failures, shed loads, official events or demonstrations. Many of the perceivable incidents of congestion in London are due to one or some or a combination of those causes.
We can build as many roads as we like and have as many skilful traffic schemes as we like, but those causes are bound to occur. They are part of the technique of roads and to some extent they cannot be avoided. But the


Government do not even try to prevent any of them. The Department of Transport will insist on closing the southbound lane of the Blackwall tunnel at weekends rather than at night. There are no police, no proper precautions appear to be taken and jams occur, although I have written about the matter. The same happens in west London. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) knows Hammersmith Broadway very well and the same problem occurs there. Years ago a policeman on point duty would have specifically sought to ensure that such incidents did not occur. The Government have not got their act together in London at all well on such matters.
Then we come to the vexed question, so far undiscussed in the House in any depth, of company cars—or rather, assisted travel. On 13 January 1989 I asked when we would have some results of the research that the Government were supposed to be undertaking into that, and I was told that it would be in a few months' time, but I have had no reply. On 20 March 1990 we were told that the final report is due in a few months' time. That seems to be taking a long time. Yet we all know that a high proportion of car use in London is by people who are not paying for it themselves. I suppose that Members of Parliament come into that category, although hon. Members know that it is not often that I come into that category.
Greenpeace has just issued a report saying that subsidies can be up to £2 a day for a Sierra and £7 a day for a Rolls-Royce, and people can do more or less what they like. It says that about one in three vehicles in London has some form of company ownership or support. But if we go further into the matter and ask how many of those are cases of assisted cost, some people say four out of five. Even the Government estimate that 2 million cars in Britain come into that category and there may be 3 million to 4 million in total. Therefore, the proportion of vehicle miles in London run by motor cars that are assisted in their movement is very high.
I hope that the Greenpeace report will be taken into account. It estimates that £1,000 million is lost to the Government in national insurance payments because, as we all know, many people have a car with their job which adds to their effective income. By coincidence, I tabled a question today about that very matter. In many cases a car is advertised as a perk of a job, but it is not subject to national insurance payments. Compared with our industrial rivals on the continent, car assistance in Britain adds to traffic congestion.
I am not one of those who advocate road pricing. That would only extend the vicious circle. Various firms and those who pay assisted travel costs would just pay the costs involved, and in any case I do not believe that it would be technically possible or socially desirable. If anyone is thinking of Hong Kong, I would say that the situation there is different from ours. They have buses, but they are often small minibuses. I do not object to those in the right places, but—

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): British Leyland buses.

Mr. Spearing: They have both sorts. They have trunk routes, happily, with Leyland buses—I shall come to Leyland in a moment—but they have other sorts as well.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that there is no intention of extending minibus routes to the exclusion of

the main trunk routes in London. They are increasing. In east London some do not even come under the aegis of London Regional Transport. In London we now have a bus service which is less comprehensive, gives less service to the public and lacks proper planning.
The Government have not yet said that they are not going ahead with privatisation and, worse still, with their planned deregulation. In view of their recent announcement about road plans, the proposals for privatisation and deregulation are even less appropriate than they were.
The public have won one victory—we have managed to retain buses with conductors in central London, and the Routemasters, which were supposed to be on the way out, are still with us.
I think that the Minister for Roads and Traffic comes from the Preston area, not far from the town of Leyland, where many buses originated. He should be discomfited to know that in London Regional Transport's official magazine not long ago LRT proudly said that it was going to re-engine the Routemasters, and was reported to be looking as far afield as Italy, Yugoslavia and even India. Unfortunately, they can no longer be built in London—the Southall works of AEC is an empty site, as is the Chiswick works, where they might have been re-engined. However, they could be built in Leyland, Lancashire. I see no reason why London should look abroad to re-engine its Routemaster buses. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue.
In the past few weeks we have heard, almost ad nauseam, that the Minister is considering either a Chelsea to Hackney tube line or the Liverpool Street to Paddington cross rail. Since none of the planned roads will now be built, the Minister has money to build both the tube and the rail link—and why not? The Government were going to spend a lot of money knocking down houses and building roads. Now that that option has been turned down, why can we not have both rail routes?
Some of the new rail routes that the Government boast about are not being put to good use. For example, in east London, the docklands light railway was originally meant to be used by the people of the area and to some extent that is still true, but people in east London cannot help noticing that the existing railway is not open at weekends and closes every night at 9 o'clock. Surely revamping cannot take two years. There is something wrong somewhere. The reliability of the railway has not earned a high reputation, although safety is probably all right. The London Arena, which is part of the famed docklands development in the West India docks, is not now served by the DLR because people leave after 9 o'clock—so much for transport co-ordination in new rail lines.
Today the Minister emphasised the needs of the people of south London, who have often wanted more underground services, and I understand why. South London has a good overground rail system but unfortunately the lines terminate at the London terminals. Many years ago the Greater London council had a plan for a cross rail scheme, not just from Paddington eastwards but joining Victoria and Euston. Another possible option for the Minister to consider is that as it is only a short distance from Victoria to Euston there could be a north-south cross rail so that many of the suburban lines of south London could go through central London and out the other side, just as the famed Thameslink does. That would be a relatively easy option and it would be good value for money.
A scheme which would be even better value for money, and which I advocated to the House some years ago when I was Member of Parliament for Acton, was the ring rail. There is only about a mile and a quarter gap between the electrified lines north and south of the river. If that gap were filled, we could create a complete fast rail ring around London which would join, among other places, Stratford, Willesden, Clapham Junction and New Cross. There could be variants of that route, but it would certainly relieve traffic congestion in central London as well as possibly giving some sort of alternative to the M25.
On Friday I had, if not the pleasure, at least the opportunity of pointing out what I regard as a major lacuna in safety on the Underground. I shall not repeat myself now, but I note that the managing director of London Underground, Mr. Tunnicliffe, says in today's Evening Standard:
I have only one overriding priority: safety.
I am afraid that I cannot agree. As I have said often enough, the extension of one-person operation on to London's older tube lines certainly increases hazard. I do not think that either Mr. Tunnicliffe or the Minister could disagree with that, although they may not agree with me that the increase is significant.
The Government have imposed economies on the transport authorities. Worst of all, they have imposed economies on staff numbers, and have damaged the staff morale that is so fundamental to any public service. They regard London's transport as a marketable commodity rather than an essential feature of city life.
I have sketched out several of the gaps in current policy, but the biggest gap is financial. We all know that the cost of travel in London has risen by markedly more than the cost-of-living index. As Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) directed that the increase should be roughly in line with inflation. It is ironic that the right hon. Gentleman, who does not really believe in intervention, should intervene in a reasonable way in that regard. Since he left the Department of Transport, however, successive Secretaries of State have almost boasted that the cost of London's public transport—on both British Rail and London Regional Transport—will rise by more than the cost of living. That is a deliberately inflationary policy, notwithstanding the oft-repeated phrase of the Prime Minister and others at the Dispatch Box, "Above all, we must fight inflation." It will have such a major effect on the people of London that the Government will not be able to get away with it.
We often hear that London Transport in the 1930s set an example to the world, and indeed it did. One reason why that was possible was the co-operation between parties which produced the London Passenger Transport Board; another was the relatively low car ownership of those days, which allowed a rough balance to be struck between public and private transport.
We believe—the Government must surely come to the same conclusion—that that balance has been achieved in many capital cities throughout the world, particularly on the mainland of Europe, but it can be achieved only with adequate public finance, both capital and revenue. Without that finance, the result will be either an imbalance or the public paying more than they should.
The cost today of travelling between two London underground stations—a facility that is particularly important to people living in east London, who do not necessarily own cars—is either 50p or 70p. That is both illogical and anti-social. It is a policy of regression, which helps neither public transport nor the people involved—it merely reduces the taxpayer's subsidy, which is not particularly appropriate.
The Government have at last understood that building roads does not in itself solve transport problems, but they have dispersed the professional teams at County Hall—the only people capable of putting Humpty together again. I do not know whether it can be done just like that. There is a variety of organisations, including the roads unit in the Department of Transport. I presume that there is also a London and south-east railways unit, though it is not particularly visible. London Regional Transport is supposed to be the statutory authority for the co-ordination of transport, but it is in competition with British Rail, which has its own regions and Network SouthEast, which lies very uneasily with it. They, together with the 32 London boroughs and the City of London, provide the transport policy for London. There is no coherent and logical system for transport planning, although we need one urgently.
I put it to the Secretary of State, through the Minister for Roads and Traffic, that the Government must produce a coherent, understandable and, above all, democratically oriented organisation which at the very least is accountable to this House, for at last it appears that both sides agree about the strategy and the direction in which we wish to move.
Such an organisation needs a place in which to live. I can think of a vacant building not too far from here in which space should be reserved. In the not-too-distant future, the people of London—not to mention the people of Mid-Staffordshire—will show that they have rumbled the absence of policy and the negative policies of the Government as regards public services, not just transport but almost any other public service that one cares to name. The people of London will want the new Government to provide a democratically elected and accountable organisation to look after the strategic planning of London's transport. If the present Government do not recreate a body such as the Greater London council to administer transport in London—it is the only capital city in the world with no central planning strategy for transport—I know that the next Government will.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We represent a hard-pressed London borough, but we enjoy the great advantage that it is a Tory-free zone. It will remain that way after the 3 May elections, and the next Labour Government will give us the transport and social investment that east London so desperately needs.
The Secretary of State for Transport sounded a little miffed because we were not wholly grateful to him for his announcement yesterday. If one looks for gratitude in politics, one will look for ever. When he does the obvious, he can hardly expect us to fawn. He has spent £10 million


of taxpayers' money on road assessment studies that I could have carried out for nothing, reaching exactly the same conclusion.
The consultants' recommendations were not the Government's recommendations. The consultants were given a working brief. If the Government had said that they were not in favour of larger roads and more roads around London, and if they had asked the consultants to consider the public transport aspects, the consultants would not have made the recommendations that they did. So they took their lead from the policy direction given by the Government, from the working brief that I am sure they were given by the Department of Transport, and came up with their proposals. But the Government have now wisely rejected them, and there are three reasons why the Government have done so.
First, there was massive public resistance to the roads proposals. We fought those proposals on many occasions, and that, among other things, cost the Tories the 1973 GLC elections. In particular, the public were opposed to the motorway box proposals. Londoners were never in favour of them. They are no more in favour of them in 1990 than they were in 1973.
Secondly, environmental issues in London, as elsewhere, are more to the fore now, and that must have influenced Government thinking when considering the assessment proposals.
Thirdly—and probably the most important—the Government realised the disastrous political consequences of proceeding with road schemes and making an announcement at about the time of the 3 May elections. There was some cynicism in that. I do not blame them. After all, only a stupid politician—there are plenty of them on the Government Benches, not necessarily present tonight—would be prepared to court political catastrophe. Conservatives are doing that now over poll tax.
I do not see the Secretary of State for Transport in that category. If I were giving credit tonight, I would give him credit for not wishing to fall on his own sword. The Government have enough problems with poll tax, mortgage levels and the whispering campaign against the Prime Minister without adding the problems associated with mass defections from the Tory party at the time of the local elections in London. Those three reasons caused the Goverment to have a change of heart.
We appreciate what the Secretary of State does not want. But we do not have a transport strategy for London. That is still missing after yesterday afternoon's announcement. We have transport decisions being driven by purblind political dogma. They believe in deregulation; and in the deregulation of buses, for example, we have chaos developing with commuter coaches coming into London. There are many feeder lines, causing coaches to go down side roads in an effort to avoid the jams on the main roads. That is causing chaos to parts of east London.
Opposition to bus lanes and lorry bans is all part of the ideological defects with which we are presented by the Government. We also have the short-term political considerations to which I referred, coupled with the question, "How many votes will be lost by various proposals, and how can we keep the really nasty bits of what we are doing in Labour boroughs?"
Another motivation for Government decisions in transport in London just now is how much they can get out of the private sector. A classic example of that is the

Jubilee line extension proposal. Anybody who understands the transport requirements of London knows that the Jubilee extension is not, if looked at objectively, the highest priority for new investmemt. But because it is required by Olympia and York for Canary wharf, and because they are prepared to put up some money for it, the Government have been prepared to go along with them.
But, remember, Olympia and York is putting up only some money, and that amount is changing all the time. My figures show that originally the Government announced that Olympia and York would contribute £400 million to the Jubilee line extension, which had an estimated cost of £900 million. All that has changed. The cost of the Jubilee line extension is now put at £1 billion at 1988 prices, and by completion it will have risen to nearly £2 billion in outturn prices. Olympia and York will contribute only £100 million cash during the course of construction, with up to £300 million cash after completion in 1997.
It seems that its contribution has come down to about 15 per cent. of the total cost of the project. In other words, for that 15 per cent. we can have something put into London which would be good for us in Newham, but would we, for London as a whole, have gone for that investment?

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Banks: As my hon. Friend says, we would not: have chosen that. More pressing demands are being made on transport investment decisions in London. That is no way to run a capital city's transport system, and it is little wonder that people in this city are becoming angry and impatient with the Government.
It is no wonder that the Confederation of British Industry, in its recent report "The Capital at Risk", described transport in London as being in a "deplorable state". I shall carry on saying that, but that was also said by the CBI, a body to which the Government have paid some heed. The CBI estimated in that report that the cost to the nation of our inadequate transport system was about £15 billion per annum, of which £10 billion accrued in the south-east and no less than £7·5 billion in London alone. That is the scale of the problem in the capital city.
Everyone can see what the Government either cannot or will not see in terms of transport planning in London. We desperately need strategic planning for all modes of transport in London and the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South mentioned the past expertise at County Hall. We used to produce the transport in London plan which was a once-a-decade proposal. I have here the 1981 Greater London transport survey, and there were others in 1962 and 1971, which were carried out under Tory as well as Labour administrations at County Hall. We considered all modes of transport, which was our contribution to coherent transport planning in London.
That has all been thrown out of the window. Expertise has disappeared and transport is now left in the hands of private sector companies such as Olympia and York, which has become the transport planner for London because the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport have washed their hands of the responsibility. We know that coherent strategic planning in transport is necessary. That is the efficient way of doing things and that is what is done in other capital cities. That is precisely what is being rejected by the Government.


My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South quoted from a report which was described in The Guardian. I have the report itself, which was prepared by Stanhope Properties plc for the CBI. I shall continue my hon. Friend's quotation. The report, when talking about the present transport system in London, says:
The Government will not be able to rely on securing private sector funds from developers and contractors to assist in financing an"—
I suggest that the Minister listens to this because these comments are coming from the private sector and he is relying very much, as is the Secretary of State, on the private sector coming in to contribute heavy funding for transport investment decisions. The private sector is simply not prepared to be used in that way. I shall read the quotation again:
The Government will not be able to rely on securing private sector funds from developers and contractors to assist in financing an uncoordinated transport programme; although better value may be achievable through private sector participation enhancing public spending. What is needed is an integrated planned transport system for London, encompassing roads, rail, ferries and air, encompassing the needs of passengers, goods and freight.
That is what one of the largest developers in the capital city is saying to the Government. I hope that the Government listen. They do not listen to us, but at least they should listen to one of the largest developers in the capital city.
If one travels around Europe, as I am fortunate to be able to do as a member of the Council of Europe at the moment, one is able to contrast the transport systems in places such as Paris, Brussels, Rome and Strasbourg with that in London. I accept that we have one of the longest established and most extensive transport systems in the world, but that is no excuse for it to be so lousy. It should be a reason for us having now, after all those years, just about got it right. However, the comparisons are invidious and we always come out on the wrong side. We have a tacky, rundown, inefficient, unreliable, overcrowded and expensive transport system in London. Anyone who travels in London regularly on public transport or who uses the roads of London knows that to be a fact.
In many ways, customers on the public transport system in London are treated as though they were getting in the way of running an efficient system. I am sick of waiting for trains at Stratford or Forest Gate stations with the new game that British Rail has just invented on Network SouthEast. It is called "guess the length of the train". It is quite dangerous when one suddently realises that the train is one or two carriages shorter than one expected; all the people on the platform start running towards the shortened train. There is no indication. In the age of advanced computer technology, we still do not know whether the train will turn up or how long it will be. We are still not given the sort of announcements that allow one to make one's own decisions. It is an ineffective way of communicating. It is so appalling that at times it defies belief.
Roads in the capital city have deteriorated alarmingly in recent years. There are many reasons for this. One is that local authorities have broken away from the planned maintenance that they used to carry out, perhaps in many cases because they have been hit by expenditure cutbacks initiated by the Government. Then, of course, with

deregulation, privatisation and various development schemes, one sees that the roads in our capital city are reaching an appalling state of dereliction.
I have put this to the Minister on a number of occasions through parliamentary questions and I have talked to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment about it. Because of privatisation, there are so many more bodies now that have a statutory right to dig up the roads. I wanted to know just how many there were, but unfortunately no one seemed to be able to tell me. One sees a lot of decent road—I have seen it in the east end, round the Romford road, at Forest Gate—just dug up, probably by the gas board. Then they put in that soft tarmacadam, which immediately sinks, the road deteriorates, it is right by a bus stop, puddles collect and people get splashed.
These are small points, but when they are taken together one realises that there is a lack of consideration, concern and co-ordination. People should not be allowed to dig up the road and then walk away, leaving it in a terrible state, until someone else comes along and digs up the same patch.
Where is the sense in all this? Surely someone must have some sort of computer model somewhere in London that could co-ordinate matters, but no one seems to care and no one seems to know. That is an indictment of this Government, since they have pooh-poohed the idea of strategic planning in London.
Developers do not pay the full cost of the developments that they undertake. It is all very well to say that this is part of the burgeoning economy, but when developers cause massive hold-ups round a site, morning after morning and evening after evening in the rush hour, they should be told that part of the development cost is the cost of disturbance to others in the locality and in London as a whole because of the traffic problems that are created. I am all for people paying costs, but I want to make sure that they pay all the costs and that there are no hidden subsidies.
The Government are drifting along, as ever, in terms of transport in London. As many of my hon. Friends have said, there is no coherence in transport planning in the capital city. Planning has become a dirty word in the political lexicon of the Tory party. Major decisions are left to pot luck and the market, with no proper evaluation of the schemes. We have myriad schemes at the moment and it is very bewildering and difficult to follow them all. They emerge one at a time, with no relevance to each other and with no coherent overall planning.
What is happening over the Channel tunnel and the decisions about the links to the tunnel is making us the laughing stock of Europe. The French do not behave like us in making major financial decisions. They cut across political boundaries in France. Why the hell cannot we cut through the obduracy of the Tory party? The Government are completely hidebound by their political antagonism to any form of public expenditure or coherent planning. What really annoys me is the petty-mindedness of the Tory party, led by the half-mad old bag lady in No. 10.
I cannot understand why the Government continue to sit this one out and hope that somehow, in the end, everything will work out all right. It is not working out all right. It is getting worse and worse. Anyone who knows anything about transport or who travels around London realises that that is the truth.
The Secretary of State said yesterday afternoon that he is considering the east-west cross-rail link and the Hackney-Chelsea link, but that he is not sure that London


could stand both of them. Of course, London could stand both. When we consider what we are standing at the moment, we could certainly stand two major transportation developments which would be to the massive benefit of all Londoners. We can take it if the Government are prepared to authorise the finance.
In the absence of coherent strategic planning and thinking, we shall have to wait for a Labour Government. That we all understand and appreciate. Fortunately, the cavalry is not far away; it will take two years or perhaps less to arrive. The Government could get us away from having to go through the peculiar system of private Bills to bring major transportation proposals before Parliament. The Secretary of State again talked about London Regional Transport lodging a Bill in November either for the east-west cross route or for the Hackney-Chelsea line. Those should not be left, like the Channel tunnel or the fast link, to the private Bill procedure. He knows that there are recommendations for reforming private Bill procedure. If the Government will not do anything about strategic planning of transportation in London, they have the opportunity to reform the private Bill procedure. If they did that, it would at least be some contribution.
In the meantime, we will have to hobble along in London with the belt-and-braces approach to strategic planning which is a disgrace to London and to Europe. It defies all accurate description and belief, but unfortunately we seem to be stuck with it for a few more years. Fortunately, the Government will soon be on their way and we will get back to a strategic plan for London which Londoners can look forward to and benefit from.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I want to echo much of what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South on securing this important debate. It may be of interest to note that there seem to be no Members other than the Minister on the Government side seeking to speak. I wonder why, since they were all so keen to hear this afternoon that their marginal seats in London had been protected by the victory that we have all had in getting the road proposals turned down. That is what they think, but in practice it will not save the day for them. That is why they were here; that was their interest this afternoon. When it comes to debating how we should solve the problems of transport in London, they are absent.
It is a historic day. We are all delighted to see the end of the process of assessment studies, initiated by the Secretary of State for Transport in 1984.

Mr. Tony Banks: As long ago as that?

Ms. Ruddock: Yes, as long ago as that.

Mr. Banks: Which one was it?

Ms. Ruddock: I am afraid that there have been too many for such a junior Member of the House as myself to remember.
The studies were intended to solve the problems of traffic congestion in four corridors in London. As such, they were always fatally flawed and, as my hon. Friends

have pointed out, there has never been any way in which the problems of the capital city could be solved in isolated pockets.
Today the Secretary of State attempted to distance himself, as well he might, from those studies, saying that they were the ideas of consultants. But the brief was drawn by his own Department of Transport. It is clear that the major elements in that brief were consistent with the Government's own philosophy. I believe that they were as follows. The first aim was to increase, where possible, the road capacity around the central area and to increase the radial capacity in selected areas. The second element was to support public transport schemes, but with the proviso that they should not depend on Government grant and should be paid for primarily by the users of the service. The third was to resist the pressure for traffic restraint which has come from so many people in London; I quote the west London study which said of restraint that it is not
a practical or acceptable basis for planning.
The fourth element was to support traffic management measures, such as red routes and traffic calming.
Bearing those elements of the so-called "strategy" in mind, and after today's announcement, I wonder how the Government will now plan for the future. We have been told that all the road-building proposals have been scrapped. I suggest, therefore, that the Secretary of State's policy for London lies in tatters. After six wasted years, he now gives us a whole series of public transport measures for which the studies were wholly unnecessary, and proposals for traffic-calming measures that the London boroughs could happily have produced for themselves.
Even so, we could perhaps forgive the delay and the waste, if only we were certain that the public transport options were likely to become reality. The Secretary of State today scorned my suggestion that the £3 billion that would have been spent on roads should be committed immediately to the support of public transport in London. He suggested that the money had not been committed to road building, but, as he knows only too well, the difference is that money for roads is readily made available from the public purse, whereas British Rail has to find an 8 per cent. return on investment, while operating subsidies are being removed from Network SouthEast and have already been removed from London Regional Transport. Thus, the fare-paying passenger will have to bear the brunt of the cost of any new public transport infrastructure that Ministers propose. As we have seen from recent experiences on Network SouthEast, constant price rises deter passengers.
Does the Minister still agree with the consultants who, for the purpose of the assessment studies, assumed that there would be a 46 per cent. increase in real terms in public transport fares between now and the end of the decade? Does he still agree with the Department's estimate of between 1 and 2 per cent. growth in road traffic per annum in London? If so, how does he intend to solve the congestion problems on the roads, the overcrowding on the tubes and the huge inefficiencies of our bus and train services? If road building was deemed necessary. what is he now proposing to put in its place?
When Opposition Members asserted that only public transport could meet the needs of millions of Londoners on the move, Ministers constantly denied it. Indeed, when the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) briefed


hon. Members representing London constituencies, he said that only a mix of new road building and public transport could solve the problems of congestion—

(Mr. Atkins): That is right.

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister says, "That is right." Where is his faith in new road building tonight? His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rejected all the road proposals for London which, at that meeting, he said were absolutely essential to solve the problems of this capital city—[Interruption.] I assure Conservative Members that I do, indeed, understand.
I shall go further into my recollection of that meeting with the Minister. At that very same briefing, the Minister's advisers told us of the computer models on which the Department itself had tested the consultants' proposals. I remember specifically asking the Minister whether he could give me the results of the proposals of the tests on road building alone. His advisers said that they could not, but they could tell me that, in their model tests, the public transport proposals alone could not solve the problems. Both the Minister and I were present—

Mr. Atkins: Absolutely.

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister says, "Absolutely." Opposition Members must therefore ask, if that is his view and if there are now to be no road-building proposals, how is he to solve the very problems that were identified in the four assessment studies?
Just a matter of weeks ago, the Minister put that view on the record, so I challenge him tonight to make absolutely clear how the Government propose to deal with the problems outlined in those studies when they no longer propose to build the roads that they previously said were so essential to the solutions.
Does the Minister intend to introduce measures of car restraint, or does he accept that in 10 years the amount of traffic could be 20 per cent. greater than it is today? If he accepts that, in an essential area, does he honestly believe that any vehicles will be moving on our roads?
How exactly do the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport intend to accelerate the development of public transport proposals that have been listed and reiterated today? Will the Minister answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and tell him why he cannot do as the central London rail study recommended and immediately put in train the building of both the north-south Chelsea to Hackney link and the cross-rail link? Is it not true that it is not that London cannot stand work of that nature, but rather that the private Bill procedure is so onerous that London Regional Transport feels that it cannot cope with its pressures if it has to put two Bills through the House simultaneously? Surely it is incumbent on the Minister, as my hon. Friend said, to find a way through that procedure so that we can put into practice the public transport options that are so agreeable to people in this city.
I hope that the Minister will not give us another tiresome list of all the measures that are in hand.

Mr. Atkins: Does not the hon. Lady like them?

Ms. Ruddock: On the contrary, we are delighted that measures are in hand, but we see that they are not

producing any solutions. We want the Minister to explain whether his Department has a new approach to the transport problems of London. We believe that this is a time for a reassessment of London's transport needs—not, I hasten to add, another series of studies, but a pulling together of the many analyses and reports that have already been done and are available.
There is a consensus across the political spectrum, in local government and among the people of London about what the problems are and what the solutions should be. The Minister must explain to the House what the Government's attitude to future funding of public transport will be. We have had no explanation of why the extension of the docklands light railway into south London, into Lewisham and my constituency in particular, could not have gone forward last autumn. All the details had been worked up by LRT and the docklands light railway. There had been proper public consultation, the conclusion of which was wholly in favour of the proposals. The proposals were environmentally sound. It had all been costed.
We believe that, quite simply, the Secretary of State was not satisfied that enough private money had been sought to support the proposal. That kind of strategy is no strategy. It means that, if a developer happens to be prepared to put up the money, the scheme will go ahead, but if a developer cannot be found, there will be no public transport option. That is completely unacceptable to everyone in London. If the Government are to have a change of heart— which we would welcome—in favour of public transport, they must be clear where the money is coming from and when it is coming. They must be absolutely clear that, although partnerships with and contributions from, developers are welcome, developers must not determine the public transport policy of the city.
How satisfied are the Government with the quality of our public transport?

Mr. Tony Banks: They do not use it.

Ms. Ruddock: As my hon. Friend reminds me, they probably do not use it. The vast majority of Londoners who do use public transport are clearly dissatisfied. If we are to encourage people to use public transport or continue to use it, not to use their cars, or to use their cars less, we must aim for the highest possible standards. Will the Minister help in that regard by reviewing the Government's attitude to staffing levels on all our public transport systems? Reductions in staffing have prevented people from getting the help that they require to make public transport more acceptable and usable.
Many women are already determined not to use public transport after dark because they feel unsafe. Will the Minister end the cost-cutting regime so that public transport can be cleaned up and people can be confident about its safety?
What does the Minister intend to do about the state of public transport, which my hon. Friends and I have repeatedly drawn to his attention and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends? I remind the House, yet again, of the situation that prevailed in January. In an average week, there were 26 station closures on the underground due to staff shortages. On average, 12 underground stations were closed every morning for a time because of overcrowding. On average, one in six escalators were out of order on any given day. The average wait for a high-frequency bus


service is one and a half times what it should be, and only two thirds of timetabled bus services depart on time or within five minutes of their schedule.
We applaud any change of heart by the Government that is positively in favour of public transport. That change of heart will be useless if it is but a public relations exercise, if real public money is not behind it, and if standards are not improved so that people in London positively want to use public transport and enjoy using it.
My hon. Friends have made an extremely good case tonight, for bringing back a strategic transport authority for the city. There is no other way in which we can find a coherent and comprehensive response to the traffic problems of the city other than through one elected authority with an overview, a strategy, and the necessary mechanism and access to public money to make that possible.
Tonight we urge the Minister to go beyond this afternoon's exercise, which was an attempt to save the skins of Tories in marginal seats. He should show us that there has been a change of heart and that we can look forward to a real and comprehensive strategy for transport in London.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): First, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on his ingenuity and stamina in raising this subject at this time, particularly after the exhaustive statement and discussion about these matters in the earlier part of the afternoon.
On Friday there was a major debate on public transport, when the Minister of State, who deals with such matters daily, spent a lot of time discussing the issues, as did many hon. Members on both sides of the House. There was also an earlier debate today on light railways, when my hon. Friend discussed that matter with hon. Members. If the House will forgive me, I shall not dwell at enormous length on the details of the railways and the tube, which Opposition Members have already raised with the Minister. He is aware of their concerns, but I shall ensure that they are once again drawn to his attention. I suspect that his reply will be his normal robust one—that the problems are being addressed with substantial investment and commitment.
Given my particular responsibilities, I should like to discuss roads in London. I am delighted to record that it appears that we have shot the Opposition's fox. They thought that the Government would be hogtied over this issue and find themselves in difficulties, and are now making a U-turn. That is absolute palpable balderdash.
Everyone who heard this afternoon's statement will know not only that Conservative Members reacted very favourably to the consultation exercise that we carried out, but that not one Opposition Member was able even to wing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because they knew full well that what we did was sensible and logical and the sort of thing that they could have expected from my right hon. Friend and me.
I make no apologies for the course of action that we took. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I took office in this Department last July, we came in at the tail end of the assessment study procedure, which had been going on, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, for some time. My right

hon. Friend and I were determined to ensure that we brought the study to fruition as quickly as possible for the simple reason that as a Londoner born and bred, and one who served on a London local authority for 10 years—although I represent a Lancashire constituency —I know full well the problems and realities in London.
I recognise that there has been concern. When I started on Haringey council, Archway road was a problem, when I came off the council in 1976 it was still a problem, and when I came to this Department I discovered that it was still a fundamental problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) has reminded me that it was a problem as far back as 1947. Many things do not change. I think that the hon. Member for Newham, South referred to a former Home Secretary who recognised that there was a problem at Archway road. Were it to have been recorded, I expect that many other hon. Members have, over the years, protested about congestion in London and other major cities.
The consultants came up with a number of proposals. The Department of Transport was involved in asking questions, as it had in years gone by. It invited consultants in the four areas to look at the possibilities as the technical experts saw them. Hon. Members will know better than I, because it affected their constituents before I came o this job, that a considerable amount of controversy was stirred up because the consultants considered the most extreme options and the much smaller ones. On average, there were a dozen options, sometimes more, sometimes less, in each of the assessment study areas. Those included road and public transport options, and were the consultants' ideas.
Shortly after my right hon. Friend and I took office in this Department, we were presented with the consultants' final reports. The matter had gone on for some time, and Members from both sides of the House had indicated that they did not think that it could continue for much longer. Therefore, we determined to complete the process as quickly as we could, which we did.
Some hon. Members attacked my right hon. Friend when he said in November that the consultation process would be over by the end of February. They said that the period was too short. We wanted to curtail people's worry and concern, and forestall the possibility of blight. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) waved around a figure of 10,000 this afternoon. Many people—about that number or less—were concerned about the threats as they saw them, although they were largely fictitious. However, there was much concern. We all know, as Members of Parliament, that our constituents can become worried by any sort of proposal. One only has to have a chat with the surveyors, draw a line outside a house and everyone starts worrying. I recognised the concern, and the Department wanted to do something about it.
At the same time, we underwent a processs of consultation in the Department which was as wide as I have seen since being in public office. We listened to everyone and received representations in all sorts of odd forms from various opponents of the schemes. A good number of them were doubtless Labour party supporters, or even further to the left. Equally, there were a substantial number of opponents who represented Conservative and other views, and it became—

Ms. Ruddock: At this stage of the consultation, did the Minister or the Department learn anything different from


all that had been set out in the many documents, reports and statements made by those who had been involved over the years, including the public response that came to the Department before stage 2 was commissioned in 1987, which was to the effect that additional road capacity would attract more traffic and the congestion problems would not be solved?

Mr. Atkins: That is a school of thought of many people, not least my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), but we cannot disinvent cars, lorries, trucks or buses. They are there, and we must deal with that problem.
I think that the hon. Lady and I would find agreement if I were to remind the House of the remarks of the Liberal spokesman on these matters. She has said that there are not many Labour Members in their places or many of my hon. Friends, but no Liberal Member is present. The House may recall that the Liberal party has said that it is not in favour of any restriction on the use of private cars but it would not be prepared to build roads on which those cars could travel. That would be the ultimate recipe for congestion. That is typical of those who sit on the fence with an ear to the ground on both sides of it.
The hon. Lady has talked about the consultation procedure. I cannot give her chapter and verse of what went on before I became involved, but I could inquire for her. If she would like me to do so, I shall write to her. I can explain only what I have done since I have been Under-Secretary of State for Transport. The Department has gone through the consultation process with no fixed view of what should or should not happen. Opposition Members may not believe that, but I assure them that what I say is true. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed.
The hon. Lady says that we have done away with all our road programmes and that our road policy in London is in tatters. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to agree with me that a road policy that will cost £250 million for new roads and road improvements in London is not much evidence of a policy in tatters. It is not much evidence of a complete removal of road improvements.
It is a substantial policy, and we are talking only of proposals. I remind the House that we are already committed to a £1·9 billion programme for London's trunk roads and a further £1 billion to be spent by the London Docklands development corporation and the boroughs on other road schemes. That is not much evidence that we are reducing the roads programme and other road schemes. We have the largest roads programme that we have ever had outside London. Incidentally, that investment is being exceeded by the spending on public transport.

Ms. Ruddock: I wish to correct the Minister. This afternoon, the Secretary of State for Transport said clearly, "I have decided not to proceed with the major road schemes recommended by the studies." I merely reiterated that statement tonight. I have not questioned the so-called improvements and the moneys for the traffic-calming measures, of which we wholly approve.

Mr. Atkins: Many adjustments will be made to existing roads, but what about the commitment that we made to

build the Hooley bypass, for example? That is a new road for which people have asked. It forms part of the £250 million programme to which I have referred.

Ms. Ruddock: We must be clear what we are talking about. The cost of all the road building proposals was to be about £3 billion. There is a considerable difference between £3 billion and the millions of which the Minister speaks.

Mr. Atkins: We cannot continue like this. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I made much play with the proposed roads being unpopular. Having listened to what the London public requested across the political, industrial and municipal spectrum and decided that the proposals did not make a lot of sense in some areas, we are now accused of making a U-turn and dropping programmes. Where exactly does the Labour party stand on these issues?

Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady has had a fair crack of the whip, and doubtless will have the same opportunity again.
I make no apology for the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made this afternoon. The comments about London borough elections are well taken. Our currency and the way in which we operate in the House across the political spectrum has to do with votes and public opinion, because votes represent the views of ordinary people. I do not deny that, for the simple reason that, if Opposition Members are fair, those of them who have been in government or who have served on local authorities—I know that the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) is one—will agree that some decisions that may be cross-party in conception or in practice are not always discussed properly in the heat of a general or local election.
To that extent, it is wise to remove some matters from an immediate election programme discussion. We have the opportunity to discuss these matters; we have taken it until now and will doubtless do so again. But I make no apology for recognising and hearing what London has said about its concerns. I am proud of the fact. As my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, the decision is not to be regarded in any way as a climb-down, because we never climbed up in the first place. Let us get that clear and on the record.
I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily but I must answer one or two of the questions that have arisen. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Deptford said about traffic restraint and road pricing—

Ms. Ruddock: Not me.

Mr. Atkins: Road pricing was mentioned.

Mr. Spearing: It was me.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned road pricing and said that he did not favour it. I am interested in that view, because I was under the impression that the Labour party had adopted a measure of road pricing. On at least one occasion, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has made it clear that he is in favour of it; presumably he has had to change his mind as a result of pressure from his hon. Friends. Road pricing


is an area of philosophical concern which I suspect will not go away and will have to be examined over a period of time.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West also referred to problems arising from street works —a subject on which I have considerable sympathy with him. He will know of the existence of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950—PUSWA for short—which is long overdue for reform.

Ms. Ruddock: Hear, hear.

Mr. Atkins: At this stage I can do no more than express the hope that street works will form part of legislative proposals based on the Home report and related matters towards the end of the year. I deduce from Opposition Members' reaction that such proposals will find favour across the political spectrum. I cannot make a commitment, but I hope that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council considers these matters, he will take into account the express view of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The final concern that was expressed was in relation to company cars. Company cars are an emotive issue. I know that many of my constituents who have achieved some status in their lives look upon company cars as perks or as the tools of their trade, whether they are salesmen on the road, people who regularly travel or even company directors. The taxation of company cars is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We have a unique capacity in this country to provide cars for a substantial number of people and I look upon that as an opportunity for environmental change and improvement. We can persuade companies that buy a substantial number of cars to realise that they can

influence a decision on the sort of cars that their employees use. Cars should be environmentally more friendly, smaller and safer, and they should be capable automatically of using lead-free petrol—

Mr. Spearing: And be British.

Mr. Atkins: Yes, and be British. Even if they are Japanese in origin, the fact that they have been built in this country is another attraction. If that opportunity were taken, it would go a long way to coping with the environmental problems about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned.
I have ranged over a wide variety of concerns that have been raised. I emphasise that the proposals that my right hon. Friend announced today are an indication of a plan for London that is balanced in terms of public transport and improvements on the roads and in terms of the finance which in part we shall provide. I have no doubt that we shall persuade the Treasury, as we have in the past, to increase our budget to provide the resources, and we shall endeavour to ensure that the schemes are completed.
In terms of transport proposals for London, we now know exactly where we stand. I reject utterly the suggestion of Opposition Members that, as one of my right hon. predecessors may well have said, the Government are adamant for drift. In fact, we are committed to a London public transport policy covering a wide variety of options. It is up to the public to choose. Through the recent consultation procedure, they have indicated their views. I welcome that, as do my hon. Friends. In due course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and it will be a Conservative Secretary of State for Transport in a Conservative Government who will be implementing the plans in the year 2000.

Orders of the Day — European Exchange Rate Mechanism

2 am

Mr. Hugh Dykes: That we can move from transport in London to the European monetary system in one fell swoop, in the blink of an eyelid, is another indication of how this original parliamentary institution deals with so many subjects on the Adjournment. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the very important matter of the future of this country in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, but I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for appearing at this late—or early—hour to respond to points made by myself and, perhaps, by other hon. Members. All Treasury Ministers are known to have an excessive workload during the day, and they work in the evenings as well—and now the early morning, too. At this late hour I shall try to be brief, despite the fact that this is a very important area of policy.
As the debate has ebbed and flowed, in this House—the mother of Parliaments—in the European Parliament and in other institutions of the European Community, this area of policy has been in the news. It has been dealt with in a very major way in the British press. I am thinking in particular of the excellent contributions of the Financial Times. As in so many other areas of enlightened policy, that excellent newspaper is a most enthusiastic exponent of our immediate, or very early, accession to the exchange rate mechanism, and of the theory that yesterday would have been even better. I think that I am right in saying that.
I assume that that is more or less the policy of Her Majesty's Government, including my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and his colleagues in the Treasury. Indeed, the Chancellor gave a notable and interesting interview on television on Sunday, in which he emphasised that the rate of inflation was the crucial factor in the timing of our joining the exchange rate mechanism. I do not remember his exact words, but I think that the implication was "as soon as possible". He sounded enthusiastic, although he uttered a word of caution about our inflation rate differential.
That is obviously a problem, so much so that after the television interview the press and, I think, hon. Members, perhaps from all parties, took it as being the primordial condition and assumed that other questions concerning our formal joining of the EMS had faded into the background. That is my understanding of what I heard. I hope that it is not a wild exaggeration and that it does not indicate a misunderstanding of the realities of a complicated debate.
In this country, however, the debate seems to have become unnecessarily complicated. Certain people seem to be agonising about when we should take this step. I was very struck by the words of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), when he referred to this matter on Monday, the last day of the Budget debate. His comments attracted considerable attention. Referring to the Chancellor's broadcast the previous day, he said:
Again, my right hon. Friend, in his Budget statement and again in his broadcast yesterday"—
that was on Sunday—
very firmly restated the Government's commitment to sterling joining the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. But

my concern is that the timetable which is envisaged by the Government might be somewhat too leisurely for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. In my judgement, it is a pity that we did not join some time ago, but we did not, and that is that. But now we really cannot afford to take the risks involved in a leisurely timetable.
It may be that we should initially join within the framework of the wider bands before subsequently moving to the narrower bands, but the whole of the Goverment's commitment against inflation is potentially at risk. There is an exposed flank, and that is why I could favour the early entry of sterling, as I said, possibly initially with the wider bands, into the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS".— [Official Report, 26 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 62.]
There was much more in that vein from other hon. Members in the debate.
When the decision will be made and what is the reason for further delay are now the central concerns. The matter came up again at Question Time yesterday when the other elements in the policy for delay were raised, whether justified or not—the creation of greater competition in the Community and the need for the residual capital controls to be removed, matters which have to be taken care of before Britain can join the ERM.
A few weeks ago an additional condition was interposed in this increasingly complex and somewhat bewildering debate—the processing of, and perhaps even the conclusion of, German monetary union and reunification of the two parts of Germany before we could proceed further. That seems subsequently to have lapsed, and now there seems to be a suggestion that that may not be such a difficult condition after all.
I am grateful to Mr. Speaker and the authorities of the House for allowing me to initiate this debate, the purpose of which is to try to elucidate from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary precisely the point we have now reached. There is confusion among our partners and friends in the Community, as we see from the foreign newspapers and the utterances of representatives of the Commission in Brussels and members of the European Parliament, and from the bewilderment in Britain too, about what we are about.
I do not think that there is much debate now about the modalities and the attractions of the EMS. We are, after all, part members of it. We share in the reserve sharing system, and so on, and the implication is that we shall join fully as soon as possible. We know what has been done and launched under the Delors report with the central bank governors, and so on, all at the specific request of previous European Councils and summits and the Council of Ministers, not something that was launched by the Commission as a malevolent, perverse exercise of its own with nobody asking for it. If I remember rightly, Delors was enjoined, with his colleagues, to produce a detailed blueprint—those are the words used in the request for that complex and impressive examination. Yet when that was produced by Mr. Delors, whom some denounce as a dangerous Marxist—on further examination that proves to be untrue; he is a distinguished high functionary of the French public service and now an equally distinguished and important servant and President of the Commission—he was castigated in some quarters for producing such a detailed report, as though that were an unwarranted intrusion into the sovereignty and national financial affairs of the member states. But that does not seem to have caused any problem in the other member states, and I


think particularly of Spain, with its enthusiasm for most aspects of the Community and its decision to go in on the basis of an inflation rate similar to ours.
The questions in Britain remain: what is our policy, why the delay, and are we locked into delay for its own sake? Ominously, we have increasing illustrations of the danger of high interest rates adding to the prevailing rate of inflation rather than reducing it, and so the danger is that we are locked into a policy because we have said that high interest rates are our only policy of control. We cannot get out of that. We are waiting for something else to turn up, or for the inflation rate to come down, but perhaps it will not, because other forces are keeping it up. That is also a primordial condition of the delay which causes further excessive delay in our joining the exchange rate mechanism.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are three areas of debate: first, on principle; secondly, on conditions; and, thirdly, on timing? Does he also agree that there has not been much debate on the principle? May I draw his attention to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) yesterday? He took a diametrically opposed view to that of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to comment on anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said about principle? I thought that my hon. Friend made a powerful case for the economic principle.

Mr. Dykes: I do not agree, because I think that the principle has been thoroughly and fundamentally debated at all stages.

Mr. Spearing: Not in this House.

Mr. Dykes: Yes, very much so, through every stage of its parliamentary consideration, within the institutions of the Community, in the inter-governmental relationship with other member Governments of the Community since the Stuttgart declaration of March 1983, throughout the statements made in the House, the subsequent debates, and throughout the lengthy and elaborate process of the Single European Act. Although the single market is the first item in the list of items in the Single European Act, it is not the only one. According to juridical examination of the seven items, they are all equal, and economic and monetary union is one of them. That was ratified by the House as an addition to the treaty.
There is no question of any gaps or subterfuge by the Government or anyone else, nor any question of lack of debate in this place about all these matters. The principle seems to be greeted with enormous and almost universal enthusiasm in the House and outside, although that is somewhat precluded by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and one of the last hon. Members to remain unenthusiastic about our membership of the European Community. We know that, and we respect his scholarship, research and study of such matters, but we think that he is out of date and has been overtaken by events. Most people in the Labour party also now think that, because they too have changed, whether for genuine or artificial reasons, or for a mixture of both.
When one studies what has happened under the exchange rate mechanism—and, predictably, one would expect the Delors report to be enthusiastic about it—one realises how well it has worked. It has also worked for the weaker members of the Community. I remember some of the British newspapers—the Daily Express and the Sunday Express used to go berserk about this subject but they have calmed down a bit now—said that Italy could not possibly stay in the European monetary system because the Italians could not organise things, which is most offensive. It is not true either. Italy is a rather well-run country, and we ought to learn more about it as it could give us some good advice about how to do things here. They said that the lire was too weak. But not a bit of it—we have seen what has happened.
I shall quote from page 2 of the Delors report—and the House will recognise his natural enthusiasm; after all, he and his committee made all these proposals and suggestions. It says:
Within the framework of the EMS the participants in the exchange rate mechanism have succeeded in creating a zone of increasing monetary stability at the same time as gradually relaxing capital controls. The exchange rate constraints"—
which are what we are talking about when we mention anti-inflation discipline and all the rest of it, and it is a pity that we are not right in there, as 100 per cent. members—
has greatly helped those participating countries with relatively high rates of inflation in gearing their policies, notably monetary policy, to the objective of price stability, thereby laying the foundations for both a downward convergence of inflation rates and the attainment of a high degree of exchange rate stability. This, in turn, has helped moderate cost increases in many countries, and has led to an improvement in overall economic performance. Moreover, reduced uncertainty regarding exchange rate developments and the fact that the parities of the participating currencies have not been allowed to depart significantly from what is appropriate in the light of economic fundamentals have protected intra-European trade from excessive exchange rate volatility.
I think that I am right in saying that a few years ago Holland too had a high rate of inflation. According to various learned articles in the Dutch papers—and ours—it was caused by huge social costs. I hope that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), with his knowledge of Holland, will confirm that inflation there is now running at 1·5 or 2 per cent. Perhaps there is a lesson for us in that.
When I read out the passage from the Delors report, I did not hear anyone say that it was an exaggerated, hysterical description of an unsuccessful system. If we accept it, it underscores the view expressed by the former Chancellor on Monday—that is is a tragedy that we did not join the exchange rate mechanism long ago. I still do not know why we decided to establish some of the Madrid conditions.
I support the Government's view that there should be reasonable primary conditions for our entry, if they appear rational; but, when I look back on all the ebb and flow of subsequent developments, I wonder whether that is so. By joining, would we not have avoided, at least partly, our present high interest rates and ominously high inflation? We seem to be stuck in a corner; we continue to say, for some curious chemical reason—I should love to be able to work it out rationally—that there is still no good reason for joining a mechanism that has been so enormously,


tangibly and incontrovertibly successful for all European member states, including the weaker and newer ones such as Spain.
Surely, given the enthusiasm of those countries, we should follow their example as soon as possible, despite our mistake of having delayed unnecessarily so far. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary reassure us—and, indeed, add to an already spectacular career—by getting carried away and announcing a putative future date on which we can join the ERM with no further delay. I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, he too regards the present position as unsatisfactory and frustrating, and would like to make his name by lending it to what we would call the Ryder declaration.

Mr. Chris Smith: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), not only on his success in securing a slot for such an important debate—albeit in the early hours of the morning—but on his recent persistence in raising the issue. He has already intervened in the Budget debate, and this afternoon he asked the Prime Minister a question which produced an extremely interesting response. He also chose exactly the right time of day—I was able to travel to Nottingham to deliver a speech to the Royal Economic Society earlier this evening about this very issue.
I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should describe the confusion that he felt— and thought that the world felt—about the current stance of the British Government, each of whose members seems to tell a slightly different tale. First, the Chancellor himself said clearly in his Budget speech:
Our commitment to do so"—
that is, to take sterling into the exchange rate mechanism—
was set out at Madrid. It remains firm"—
and then the qualifying phraseology comes in:
and the conditions for entry remain unchanged."—[Official Report, 20 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 1013.]
That may seem clear enough, but in a television interview at the weekend the Chancellor seemed to become rather more positive about British entry than he had been in the cold, formal Budget statement. After the Chancellor's more enthusiastic references in his television interview, however, the Prime Minister seemed today to be distancing herself, yet again, from a firm commitment to British entry.
There was a new version of the royal "we" in the Prime Minister's answer. I think that I quote her correctly as saying, "In my first decade as Prime Minister I was unable to enter the exchange rate mechanism." Identification of the Prime Minister with the rest of the world by the use of the word "we" is one thing. Identification of the Prime Minister in her own person with the currency of this country is something else. However, it was clear from what she said that she regards the conditions that she laid down at Madrid as being, as yet, unfulfilled and that she is reiterating them with ever greater ferocity.
What are those conditions? The first is that the rate of inflation must come down. The Government have never specified what the rate of inflation must be before they believe it right to join the exchange rate mechanism. They have said that inflation will increase over the next few

months, that it will reach a plateau of around 7 per cent. for the rest of the year and that if their predictions turn out for once to be correct, inflation will fall to around 5 per cent.—but it will still be above the European average—in the next financial year. However, the Government have not said at what point on that scale, if at all, they would regard it as right for Britain to join the exchange rate mechanism.
Secondly, there is the free movement of capital condition. I was surprised when the Prime Minister laid such stress upon that condition this afternoon. The Prime Minister regards the French as the principal perpetrators of evil in that respect, but considerable progress has been made in the past few months in the rest of the European Economic Community and especially by the French. The condition relative to free movement of capital has been almost fully met, yet it was again trotted out by the Prime Minister as the principal condition that she thought had not been met.
Behind those two stated conditions, relating to inflation and to the free movement of capital, there is perhaps another, which the Prime Minister is reported in the press as having stated privately though not in public—the fear that unification of the two German states, leading to German currency union, will have an impact in the short term on the deutschmark and will thus create a strain on the existing exchange rate mechanism. We know from press reports that that fear may have been in her mind but nowhere has she stated it.
I hope that the Economic Secretary will say at what point, in terms of inflation, the Government believe that it would be right to join the exchange rate mechanism. I hope that he will also say whether the Government believe that progress on the free movement of capital has gone far enough and that that condition has been met. I hope, too, that he will make clear where precisely the Government stand in relation to the convergence of the deutschmark and the ostmark in terms of its impact on the exchange rate mechanism.
It seems clear that the conditions being reiterated and amplified by the Prime Minister at every stage of the debate have either been fulfilled or are incapable of fulfilment in the terms in which the right hon. Lady states them. The only logical and practical conclusion to draw is that she has decided that she does not want sterling to enter the exchange rate mechanism at any foreseeable stage.
By contrast, the position of the Opposition is clear. We wish to commence discussions for the entry of sterling into the ERM immediately. We have said that clearly and we shall continue to urge the Government to undertake it. We would wish four principles to form the content of the negotiation and discussion. They are, as clearly stated, entry at the right rate, adequate swap arrangements between the central banks to ensure protection against speculation, policies for growth agreed between the countries of the European Community and a proper regional policy to ensure that imbalances between different countries can be remedied. Those are matters which any sensible Government contemplating entry of the currency into a fixed exchange rate mechanism would wish to discuss in an amicable fashion with our European colleagues.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I have agreed with every word the hon. Gentleman uttered until his last


statement, and perhaps I could even agree with that. I detect a change of emphasis of the kind that he was trying to analyse in the Government when he said that he was looking for policies for growth as one of the conditions. Is this the end of the reflationary condition? Is it no longer a condition of Labour's now welcome support for the ERM that it should become an engine of reflation rather than an institution designed to prevent inflation?

Mr. Smith: An argument to which I shall be coming for entry into the ERM is that it provides a counter-inflationary discipline. I would draw a distinction between an economic mechanism that is counter-inflationary and one that is deflationary. Entry into the ERM assists in acting as a counter-inflationary discipline on the internal economy. In association with that, however, we would wish to ensure that balanced growth—growth can be unbalanced and bring problems—policies are adopted in common across the whole of Europe. One must ensure that in seeking to achieve counter-inflationary pressure one is not simultaneously achieving deflationary pressure. That danger exists unless at the same time there are common policies for balanced growth.
We do not regard the principles that we have adumbrated and that we wish to see as part of the discussion with our European colleagues as obstacles we are placing in the way of membership. We regard them as prudent items for friendly discussion. In our discussions so far, Governments and colleagues in EC countries have readily agreed with our objectives.
The benefits of exchange rate mechanism membership are clear. First, there is the benefit of stability for industry in having an exchange rate on which it can plan. The verdict of industry itself is clear. An interesting poll was reported in Financial Weekly in January. The magazine took a poll of chief executives, finance directors and executives responsible for the financial strategy of companies with a total market value of £152 billion, which represented 32·5 per cent. of the market capitalisation of the whole British-quoted sector. The report of the poll continues:
Their verdict was an almost unanimous 'yes' to joining the ERM, with 97·2 per cent. by market capitalisation, and 91·8 per cent. by the number of companies questioned, in favour.
It is staggering that there should be such unanimous support within British industry for British participation in the exchange rate mechanism.
That view is confirmed in private discussion after private discussion that I have had with people responsible for running companies in Britain and there is, of course, overwhelming support from the other side of British industry by the Trades Union Congress. That must show that there is a clear view coming from British industry in support of membership.

Mr. Jim Lester: Industry wishes to take advantage of the single market, which is the declared policy of the Government. It is not logical to believe that one cannot take part in a single market unless there is some relationship between currencies. It is impossible to plan, design and take advantage unless one knows what the exchange rate will be for a considerable period.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. I draw his attention to my recent conversation with one of the directors of BP, whom I asked whether, as a director of one of Britain's premier companies, he would prefer a low

exchange rate or a stable exchange rate. He said unequivocally that he would prefer to have a stable exchange rate—a view which is shared across British industry by firms large and small.

Mr. Spearing: Everyone would agree that stability in exchange rates is an aid to trade and industry, but does my hon. Friend agree that in the last resort the exchange rate is an expression of the relative strengths of different economies as expressed in the value of their own currencies? If the economy of a country is, alas, for any combination of reasons not so strong as it should be and perhaps getting weaker, is there not a risk that, whatever the form of mechanism devised, there must eventually be some break point equivalent to the old-style devaluation with all its traumas and disadvantages?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, who enjoys considerable respect in the House for his sterling work as Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation. is an assiduous follower of our discussions on this and related issues. I confess, however, that I do not entirely agree with the point that he has raised because I believe that it ignores a number of factors. First, within the existing exchange rate mechanism, especially if we go in as the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), wishes—on broad bands rather than narrow bands at the start—there is a capacity for adjustment. Only if we got to an eventual grid-locked exchange rate mechanism, which in effect would land us in the realm of a common currency, would it become impossible to alter between exchange rates.
Perhaps more important than that, the relative weakness or strength of different currencies has more to do with confidence and credibility than with any particular pragmatic, identifiable economic factors. The linking of a particular currency with a basket of other currencies can engender an enormous amount of confidence and credibility which would not otherwise be there. I draw my hon. Friend's attention, for example, to what has happened with some of the smaller currencies in the world that have been tied explicitly to other currencies. The most obvious examples are the Hong Kong dollar, which is explicitly tied to the United States dollar, and the Austrian schilling, which is explicitly tied to the deutschmark. In all such cases, very considerable economic benefit has been derived from the confidence which the linkage has generated in the economy concerned.
Of course, sterling is in a different league and we have to make a judgment about the impact of sterling's entry into a much wider currency accumulation such as the exchange rate mechanism. It is our judgment that the entry of sterling into the ERM would be sufficiently economically beneficial to outweigh the potential disadvantage of yielding up the ability automatically, independently and unilaterally to devalue.

Mr. Dykes: Is it not the accurate reflection of the supreme attraction of so doing that the system has, above all, helped the weaker, deficit-oriented members coming into it and remaining in it—that would include Britain if we joined now with a somewhat uncomfortable deficit—rather than the main strong currency, the deutschmark in Germany, and the other strong one? It has been particularly beneficial to the weaker ones, which have become stronger as a result of full membership.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member is right, because the tendency within the exchange rate mechanism, especially in recent years as the number of fluctuations within the mechanism has decreased, has been for the weaker currencies and economies to be strengthened by membership rather than for the stronger currencies and economies to be weakened. That, obviously, is one of the major reasons why we believe that Britain would benefit. I note the implication in what the hon. Gentleman has just said that our economy would indeed count as one of the weaker economies in the exchange rate mechanism. That is a point that we have been urging the Government to accept and admit, but we seem to be having little success with those on the Treasury Bench.
The benefits of ERM are these. First, it would create stability for industry. Secondly, it would strengthen protection against speculation. The ability that membership of the exchange rate mechanism gives for one central bank to wrap the strength of other central banks around its efforts to protect its own currency is extremely important. It is not without its burdens as well as its benefits, but it is none the less useful. Thirdly, as I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the exchange rate mechanism would provide the surest anchor against inflation that we could seek.
Fourthly, and perhaps most important, membership of the ERM would formalise the position that we have in any case, whereby our economic sovereignty is to some extent circumscribed by the actions of other countries and currencies. It cannot have escaped anyone's notice that when the Bundesbank put up its interest rates at the beginning of October last year, our interest rates had to follow within two hours of that decision.
The reality is that the global economy is far more inter-dependent than it was 10, 20 or 50 years ago, and that reality should be recognised within the structures in which we play a part. ERM membership would give us a seat at the table and enable us to participate in the important decisions from which we are excluded but which have an inevitable impact on our economy.
The exchange rate mechanism offers no panacea for our economic problems, nor would it give us an instant solution to our inflation problem, our balance of payments difficulties or the high interest rate policy upon which the Government are so dependent. Nevertheless, it offers considerable economic benefits of stability, strength, protection against speculation and participation in crucial economic decisions and it would impose a discipline within the internal economy. In our view, the benefits of exchange rate mechanism membership and participation would enormously outweigh the burden which that discipline would impose.
There is a real danger that if the Government delay too long in making the necessary approaches for Britain to join the ERM, we shall be left outside the club while it develops, changes and progresses into a different shape, leaving us totally isolated on the sidelines and removing any of the potential benefits which increasing economic co-operation across Europe can and must offer to the British economy.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for his kind words at the outset of his speech. As to the enticing words at the end, I must resist any temptation to make a Ryder declaration tonight. I assure him that no dikes will be broken. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, it is appropriate that he should have done so, in view of his long-standing and consistent interest in the issue, the most recent example of which we heard at Prime Minister's Question Time earlier today.
There has been some speculation in the past few days about the timing of the United Kingdom's entry into the exchange rate mechanism. Let me make this very clear. It is not a question of whether sterling will join; it is simply a question of when. The Government believe that, in the right context, membership will be helpful to us, but the context must be right.
As the House knows, the Prime Minister set out the conditions for our entry clearly when she returned from Madrid last June. She said then that we will join the ERM when the level of United Kingdom inflation is significantly lower, when there is capital liberalisation in the Community and real progress has been made towards completion of the single market, and when there is freedom of financial services and strengthened competition policy. Those conditions still stand—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaffirmed them only last week in his Budget speech. We shall not join the mechanism until they have been met.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East raised the question whether German monetary union would have any bearing on the timing of our entry into the ERM. The Germans have not yet taken any decisions on the details of monetary union between east and west, much less announced them, but I am sure that the German authorities are well aware of the need to manage the operation in a way that does not lead to higher inflation or disrupt the markets or the ERM. Therefore, the latest developments in Germany should not affect sterling's entry, so our conditions remain unchanged. They have not altered one iota.

Mr. Dykes: Can my hon. Friend add that the Government do not intend to add any additional conditions to our joining the ERM as time goes on?

Mr. Ryder: The conditions were set out clearly at Madrid. Those conditions still stand, and once they have been met, they will enable us to enter the ERM.
Since June, the Community has advanced in a number of the areas that the Prime Minister listed after Madrid. All those countries required to abolish their exchange controls by 1 July 1990 under the 1988 capital liberalisation directive have now done so, apart from Italy. France lifted its remaining controls on 1 January, while Belgium and Luxembourg announced the end of their two-tier exchange market earlier this month, well ahead of the 1992 deadline they had been set. Italy is reported to be aiming to remove all its controls by May. Progress has also been made on competition policy and on liberalisation of financial services.


But further important decisions still need to be taken. For example, as yet only 60 per cent. of the measures contained in the original White Paper on the single market have been agreed at Community level. In the financial services area, the draft investment services directive is still under discussion and the associated capital adequacy directive has not yet been adopted by the Commission. Above all, we need to make more progress in reducing inflation here at home.
Against that background, it would be foolish to attempt to make any precise prediction about the timing of sterling's entry. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will be well aware that one of the elements in the so-called stage 1 measures recommended by the Delors committee in its report on economic and monetary union was that all Community currencies should be included in the exchange rate mechanism and that the same rules should apply to each. The Government have fully endorsed that section of the committee's report, so there can be no doubt that sterling will enter the mechanism during stage 1, which begins on 1 July this year.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House yesterday in the last speech in the Budget debate, progress is being made towards entry, and join we will, once the conditions that the Prime Minister set out at Madrid have been met.

Mr. Beith: As the Minister is aware, I cannot make my own speech because I have a debate later. I merely wanted to inquire whether the Chancellor's forecast of much slower progress in bringing down inflation will lead to a long delay in entry or a recognition that membership might assist us in defeating inflation.

Mr. Ryder: By a happy chance, I happen to have a transcript with me of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. The hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to the interview that the Chancellor gave on the television at the weekend. My right hon. Friend was asked by Jonathan Dimbleby about the ERM and whether the reduction in inflation to 5 per cent. or thereabouts would
constitute, for you, a substantial reduction?
My right hon. Friend replied:
Well, it is a large reduction. I think it.… the really important question is not of itself the reduction of our inflation but the fact that our inflation rate and the inflation rate of our European partners should be proximate. If their inflation rate was all about the same as ours at the moment, then the conditions effectively would probably be met. It is the proximation of our inflation rate to theirs that is the most important factor.
That gives the hon. Gentleman the reply that he sought.

Orders of the Day — Vietnam (Aid)

Mr. William McKelvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue. However, when I applied for the slot—I am still grateful for it —I did not realise that I might be speaking in the small hours of the morning. For that reason, I am glad that I am given a relatively high position in the list of debates, so that we are here at this time. I do not need to apologise to the Minister for Overseas Development for keeping her here at this time of morning. If we had not had three statements yesterday, we might have debated this matter at about ten minutes past eleven. Perhaps she should ask her right hon. and hon. Friends why the statements had to be made yesterday.
Aid to Vietnam is an important issue. I shall be fairly brief, because the key points that I wish to make are not controversial—at least we can agree on them. Vietnam is desperately poor. Poverty is the main reason why the boat people attempt to flee the country. Despite all the efforts of the Vietnamese Government, who are trying to reform the economy and to establish economic regeneration, they can begin to regenerate only when the international economic embargo imposed on them is brought to an end.
No one would dispute the range of poverty in Vietnam. Recent figures show that the average per capita income is about £100 a year. Half of all the children who survive suffer from some form of malnutrition. Even if they do not suffer from malnutrition now, the ravages of malnutrition over the years have left their scars on them. They suffer from the health problems associated with malnutrition.
I am indebted to Roger Mathews of the Financial Times for an article that he wrote on 8 March. It said:
In 1987 and 1988 thousands of Vietnamese were starving and millions more barely had enough food to survive. In April 1988 the Government had to appeal to United Nations agencies for urgent aid, citing 3m people suffering famine conditions and 7m with insufficient food, out of a total population of about 65m.
Eighteen months later not only was Vietnam satisfactorily feeding its population, but to its own amazement had more than 1m tonnes of rice to export, about 10 per cent. of its total production. For the past 20 years Vietnam had been a consistent net importer, now overnight it has become the world's third largest exporter. Those officials who feel like jumping on chairs and cheering have restrained themselves, but privately they are cock-a-hoop despite the characterisation of this achievement by Mr. Nguyen Van Linh, the Communist Party's general secretary, as 'a great revolutionary drive by the peasant masses'.
The revolution had been wrought not in the paddy fields of the Red River and Mekong deltas, not by a change in climatic conditions nor by a new strain of rice, but by Ordinances Nos. 10, 169, 170 and 193 of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, 1988. They stated, very simply, that for the first time peasant farmers were to be given long-term rights to the land they tilled"—
on a 15 or 25 year lease—
that, after paying taxes and commissions, they could sell what remained of their crops on the free market, that private traders had the same rights as the state to buy argicultural produce; and that state employees were no longer to receive heavily subsidised rice allowances.
That economic miracle regarding the supply of food was achieved in 18 months and must be admired.
The country has been drained of resources by 30 years of war, first against the French and then against the Americans. It has had no access to international aid or investment in that time to help to rebuild its central


economy. Some may say that the country's attempts at reform are meagre and certainly there have been none of the sweeping changes witnessed in the Soviet Union as a result of perestroika and glasnost. The communist leadership of Vietnam has begun to reform the central economy and for the first time market principles have been introduced. Some state controls have been lifted and a liberal foreign investment law has been passed.
There is an urgent need for foreign funds because Vietnam is so poor that it cannot raise sufficient funds for investment inside the country. Foreign funds are desperately needed to purchase imports, to invest in the infrastructure, and to help to support the economic reforms that have begun.
The international embargo is led by the Americans who banned all aid and trade with Vietnam following the war. The Americans, of course, have a tremendous influence on many western nations which follow their example. When the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in 1979, almost all European countries stopped any aid they had supplied.
Last year the International Monetary Fund mission returned to Washington and praised the economic reforms under way and proposed IMF funding. Thanks to a United States and Japanese veto, that proposal was squashed. The United Kingdom stopped aid to Vietnam in 1979 when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia. Since Vietnam's partial withdrawal from Cambodia the Government's excuse for not giving aid has been that the Vietnamese are not fulfilling their commitment to their people, including the boat people. They will not accept compulsory repatriation and therefore the Government are refusing to give aid.
Last month the Minister of State visited Hanoi, and it was expected that he would offer British aid at least to the areas from which the boat people were attempting to flee. The Vietnamese however, remained intransigent on compulsory repatriation and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman did not offer any aid.
There has been a slight shift in ministerial policy, which was revealed during the most recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions. I was pleasantly surprised by some of the responses that were given by Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) asked about aid to Vietnam and when the Government would use their influence to stop the international embargo that
appeals to the Pentagon, but to no one else".
The Minister answered:
The hon. Gentleman may remember that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I had a meeting with a number of non-governmental organisations on 14 November 1989. At that meeting we invited the NGOs to put forward a number of proposals which may help people coming from the area where the boat people came from. We have only received the proposals in the last week, but we shall be considering them urgently."—[Official Report, 12 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 18.]
Another two weeks have passed since then. While I appreciate that such decisions cannot be made too hastily and must be carefully considered, because the Minster has indicated a slight shift in policy, I hope that she will be able to tell us tonight whether any progress has been made on the matter, and whether any of the suggestions of non-governmental organisations can be followed up by some sort of positive action from the United Kingdom.
The Minister will probably understand why many Opposition Members need to feel that we are still applying whatever pressures we can to the Government to make them seriously consider, as I am sure that they are, the NGOs' projects. However, funding is essential and should be done as quickly as possible.
While the Minister is considering the NGOs' suggestions, will she look at the possibility of restoring bilateral aid to Vietnam and, through her good offices and those of her right hon. Friends, apply some pressure on the United States to end its embargo, particularly in relation to the International Monetary Fund and the World bank? Through her connections—I am sure that she has many in the European Commission—will she encourage other member states to consider seriously the possibility of giving aid to Vietnam?
Only if we give such aid, and encourage others to do so, will the Vietnamese economy begin to pick up. That will help not only to solve the problem of the boat people, which is most urgent, but to eradicate poverty in an area where we can hopefully begin to establish some useful trading links.

Mr. Jim Lester: Even at this time of day, I am delighted to return to a subject in which I have taken an interest and have followed for some time.
In the previous debate, it was said that, with the exchange rate mechanism, we now have a global economy which is fast moving. One of the big draws of the eastern European countries that I have visited recently is the fact that they feel that they are out of the global economy. Those of us who have been to Vietnam know that that is exactly what many Vietnamese feel.
In south-east Asia there are tremendous, live, developing countries. Vietnam and possibly Burma are probably the only countries to have been left out of that growth, for the reasons described by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). In this changing world, at this time of flexibility before things are once again set in concrete, there is a great opportunity to restore Vietnam into the family of nations, restore its economy, deal with its previously aggressive actions and lock it into south-east Asia and its economy. It is interesting that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited this part of the world and attended the conference of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, the ASEAN Ministers, apart from condemning the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot for the first time in direct terms, suggested that in future they wanted not a Foreign Office Minister but an economic Minister. That bears out what many of us feel, that the time is right to take an economic view as well as a political one.
The first time that a real interest was taken in these matters was in 1986 when the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs looked at south-east Asia and examined Britain's relationship with the region as a whole. We made three recommendations when we returned from Vietnam. First, we pressed for a normalising of relationships between Vietnam and the United States. Secondly, we said that even before there was a withdrawal from Cambodia—we had no doubt that there would not be one before 1990—there should be a common European policy and approach. We never managed to achieve that. Thirdly, we said that a Europewide aid programme should be planned


in advance of the withdrawal from Cambodia so that from day one things could start to happen. Again, that was not achieved. I suspect that if it had been, the problems of the boat people and those that we have in Hong Kong would not have arisen. We would have been giving some encouragement to the reforms that have been introduced in Hanoi and a sense of hope, which those of us who visit the country know is sadly lacking. We would have been able to start to build bridges, as it were. That is an essential element in the current relationship.
As I see it, Vietnam is in a Catch-22 situation. It has left Cambodia, but we are not able yet to obtain a United Nations seal of approval because of the protracted negotiations that are taking place over Cambodia. I welcome the statement that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made to me in which he detailed the part that the British Government are playing in bringing about a settlement through the Security Council and the various discussions that are being held. That is obviously the key. As soon as we can obtain a United Nations or European seal of approval to what has happened in Cambodia, it will be much more difficult for America, especially, to stand against what needs to be an international effort to restore normal relations.
Secondly, Vietnam is in a Catch-22 situation because, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has done a great deal to prepare for what might be called the first stages of rehabilitation, and that is joint funding of non-governmental organisation projects in North Vietnam. I hope that that is not too specifically connected to only the boat people because, as the hon. Gentleman said, poverty is pretty universal. There would be difficulties in targeting merely where it is thought that the boat people have left. It would be better for the region to target more broadly and to deal with poverty generally. That is the Overseas Development Administration's principal aim in most of its aid programmes.
The scene is set in that the programmes have been given to my right hon. Friend and she is considering them. I have seen many of them already and I know that they are effective. We have pressed the Vietnamese Government to facilitate the opening of offices of NGOs in Hanoi to make this element of policy really work. I press my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the diplomatic wing of the Foreign Office that there should not be a direct link to the agreement to take back the boat people involuntarily. Hanoi wants more than anything else to normalise relationships with the United States, and the United States has taken a deliberate view on the returning of anyone involuntarily to Vietnam. This is another Catch-22 situation. The Vietnamese are torn between the two pressures. They are trying to assist the Vietnamese boat people and recognise their difficulties, but they do not want to do anything that makes it more difficult to normalise relations with the United States.
The joint funding operation could take place under all the existing agreements. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has courageously started a similar operation in Cambodia, which we welcome. I judge that it would be better to introduce some carrot into the argument rather than always relying on stick. I say that for a reason. 1 have just come back from Washington. While I was there, I argued the case personally with Ministers and members of the State Department responsible for this area of policy. One came up against a stone wall on every

issue. It was impossible to convince those responsible that the Vietnam that they constantly discuss is the Vietnam of 1979 rather than the Vietnam of 1990 or that the situation in Cambodia is not as they remember it, as those of us who have been there on more than one occasion realise.
Now is the time to persuade America that if it cannot normalise relations, it should stand back. I understand the trauma that normalising relations would entail. One has only to see the memorial to Vietnamese veterans in the park outside the White House to know how deeply the war affected American society. But that does not excuse the Americans from not getting the correct facts on which to base a policy judgment. I pay tribute to the Foreign Office which, like the Select Committee, has taken many hours and days to try to persuade the State Department that the situation is as we see it. Even with the great skills of Foreign Office officials and the Foreign Secretary himself, that has not been possible.
That means that we have to think again. We cannot allow matters to continue in limbo. We cannot accept the fact that the United States is strongly against the involuntary return of the boat people. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun suggested, the Americans use their influence with all the international organisations. The IMF has said that the amount of debt to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred when we last questioned her on the arrears was not a great matter and that it could be dealt with; it was not the debts but pressure from the United States in particular that was delaying matters.
There is also a block over the settlement in Cambodia. The United Nations Development Programme has been prevented from visiting that country to assess its needs. It has not sent one of its diplomats, although almost all the countries now interested and involved have sent a stream of diplomats. It is one thing if, for their own reasons, the Americans want no relations with Vietnam and are prepared to provide no aid. But we ought at least to persuade them to stand aside and let others get on with a job that desperately needs doing. That is the tack that my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Foreign Secretary should now take. If America does not want to get involved, it should at least stop blocking other international organisations such as the European Community and the IMF and preventing them from starting to establish much more secure and sensible relationships.
We have a particular problem because of the boat people. But that is a consequence rather than a reason. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun suggested, the reason for their flight is abject poverty, which is coupled with dramatic economic change. Increasingly, the Vietnamese economy has become an open market economy, and the result of an open market economy in a country where there is no safety net is that people who lose their jobs have no other source of income and nowhere else to go. That is one of the major reasons why so many people have left. I expect that the flow will not be so great this year. The Vietnamese Government, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others have done a massive job of persuasion that the great route to California, Australia or Canada is not to be found through Hong Kong or by taking to the boats.
It is imperative that we respond, at the earliest possible date, by agreeing to joint funding and by re-establishing bilateral aid—if necessary, through an overall economic


agreement. But if America insists on trying to stop such an agreement, it will have to come about without that country. I say with absolute sincerity that it was impossible to get through to the United States officials who are currently responsible for policy the real situation in either Vietnam or Cambodia. Things were easier on Capitol Hill. It was easier to talk to Congressmen. There has been a welcome move in the House of Representatives, as, indeed, there has been in the Senate. I am hopeful that in a very short time two eminent senators will visit Cambodia. But we cannot wait for the American system to work on its own officials.
The situation in that part of the world is sufficiently critical to justify our discussing it at 3.15 in the morning. For all the reasons that have been mentioned, we could give a lead. We and our European colleagues could start to build the bridge that would enable Vietnam to come back into the family of nations and restore a decent standard of living to its people. This would facilitate precisely the sort of change that we are seeking to encourage in previously socialist countries of eastern Europe.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On this subject there has been a chorus of unanimity. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) have sung the same song. Their message is that current Government policy towards Vietnam is very difficult to understand or explain. The hon. Member for Broxtowe and I visited Hanoi fairly recently. We saw and heard for ourselves some of the changes that are taking place in Vietnam. Perestroika and glasnost may not be as obvious there as they are in some other countries, but there is a mood of change. This mood has been recognised by some international organisations, such as the IMF, which pay considerable compliments to Vietnam for the efforts that are being made to liberalise its economy.
I remember well some of the people that we met. We were impressed by their vigour and their enthusiasm to bring about change and to forge links with countries in the west. A woman took us on a tour of Ho Chi Minh's summer house, where the clock had stopped at 8.36 am. I think that most visitors have been on that guided tour. People file past to glance at the books on the desk and then to feed the massive goldfish in the pond outside. In a country where so many people are poor, where there is so much malnutrition, it is obscene to see these massive goldfish leap out of the pond to grab pieces of bread.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and the hon. Member for Broxtowe have said, it is not surprising that the Vietnamese flee their economic plight. Vietnam is one of the poorest countries in the world. The average income there is less than £100 a year. Half of all children suffer from malnutrition, and the country has never recovered from the devastation caused by 30 years of fighting—first against the French, and then against the Americans. It is particularly ironic that Vietnam is the only country among the poorest 50 to which, according to British aid statistics, we give no aid.
During the Vietnam war more bombs were dropped on Vietnam than were dropped throughout the second world war, an estimated 2 million Vietnamese died, more than

one third of the land in southern Vietnam is still affected by chemicals such as agent orange, and serious post-war problems remain such as bomb craters, much physical disability, a high incidence of birth defects and the effects of agent orange.
It is particularly tragic that a great country such as the United States is still fighting the Vietnam war. I am reminded of a visit that I made a couple of years ago to the American base at Upper Heyford when I saw one of the song books that the American forces were using, and one of the songs was about nuking the gooks. The gook mentality is still strong in the United States. We all sympathise with the families of those who were killed in the Vietnam war, but it is time that the American Government took less notice of the veterans' associations. We all sympathise with them, but it is ridiculous to pursue the vendetta against Vietnam because of the Vietnam war.
I am sorry to say that the gook mentality still appears to be strong in America and, thanks to the American-led, international economic embargo, Vietnam has been starved of funds to rebuild its economy. Farmers work without fertilisers and workers without adequate tools because of the shortage of foreign exchange to pay for imports. There is no money for basic services. For example, in Hanoi, 1 million people now rely on a drinking water system built by the French to serve the 1945 population of 100,000 people.
An end to Vietnam's economic isolation is essential. The struggling economy needs foreign aid. Everybody says so. It needs aid, trade, loans and investment to get off the ground. There has never been a more appropriate time for Britain to initiate such international action. Vietnamese troops are out of Cambodia, the boat people in Hong Kong are living testimony to the desperate conditions in Vietnam that they have fled, and the economic reforms now under way in Vietnam make it one of the best long-term bets for foreign aid and investment.
At Question Time on 12 March, the Minister mentioned Vietnam's outstanding arrears to the IMF and said that there would be no active lending programme by any of the major donor countries, which seemed to be a justification for the continuing block on the United Kingdom giving aid to that country. But the IMF report is clear. It was written by IMF staff after visits to Vietnam in May and July 1989. It may be written in IMF language, but it is difficult to miss the point, which is that Vietnam is making every effort to reform its economy and to fulfil the conditions necessary to win the international funds which it desperately needs, and the internatonal community should provide them.
When asked to comment on the report on 19 February, the Minister said;
The Government welcome the positive initial steps taken by the Vietnamese authorities towards more market-oriented policies.
The fundamental reforms under way, however, are hardly initial steps. They require a stronger response than a grudging welcome.
Arrears to the International Monetary Fund are not a reason for continuing our embargo. Far from treating arrears to the IMF as an obstacle, the report commends Vietnam for making every effort to meet its payments. It says
Vietnam's financing needs are immense—to rebuild the infrastructure, support the reform process and strengthen the growth momentum. Towards this end, Vietnam is seeking to


normalise is relations with western creditors and has despite minimum reserves— commendably remained current on obligations falling due to the fund in 1989.
Far from identifying arrears as a problem, the efforts that Vietnam has made to repay the IMF are surely a reason for lifting the embargo.
As the report states, the Vietnamese authorities
are giving priority to clearing overdue obligations to the fund … Through payments made since March 1989, Vietnam has stabilised outstanding arrears to the Fund at their end-1988 levels … and intends to remain current on future obligations falling due to the Fund.
Despite its poverty, it has even taken out a commercial bank loan to clear its overdue obligations to the fund. Therefore, it is clear that it is the political will that is lacking and not arrears, and that political will is the obstacle within the IMF board and within the British Government.
The Japanese are already investing in Vietnam. The Government should encourage British industry by restoring full diplomatic relations, bilateral aid and export credit guarantees.
The Minister told us about. and I am aware of, the moves made by non-governmental organisations, which have put forward a series of projects which they think ought to be supported by the Overseas Development Administration. They made a powerful case to the Minister for aid for those projects. In their submission to her they said that they were
concerned, above all to see the vast needs of ordinary Vietnamese people addressed to the best of our own ability and that of the international community …we believe that economic improvements in Vietnam would be a powerful factor in dissuading departures of boat people to Hong Kong and elsewhere.
There has never been a better time for the British Government, if they are serious about solving the problem of the boat people, to assist Vietnam to keep its people within that country.
After years of unsuccessful, rigid economic planning—and the hon. Member for Broxtowe and I had talks with several Ministers on the subject—the Vietnamese Government are now trying desperately to turn the economy round. They have steadily scrapped Marxist dogma. They have encouraged market forces and have probably passed the most liberal foreign investment law in Asia.
Some of the conversations that we had with Vietnamese Ministers were reminiscent of some of the language used by Ministers on the Government Front Bench. We were rather surprised to hear the sort of language that was being used to show that they were serious about turning the economy round and attracting foreign investment. For example, to bring inflation down from the 400 per cent. mark in 1976, the Government cut spending, tightened monetary policy and slashed state subsidies.
Some would argue that austerity works, because inflation fell dramatically; but it did so at a cost—the cost of falling wages, bankruptcies and unemployment, and enormous cuts in health and education spending. That, of course is a familiar scene in this country as well. During our visit we heard of one factory that could no longer afford to pay its workers in money; instead, it paid them in the bicycles that they produced.
International aid should be flowing in to support the reform, both to cushion families from the harshest short-term costs and to kick-start the Vietnamese economy into long-term growth. Many developing

countries have attempted such drastic economic overhaul, but few—even with massive international assistance—have survived the course. Vietnam has followed IMF advice consistently, and last year—as I have said—received a glowing report on its fundamental reorientation. Even so, it has not received one penny, one dollar or one dong of IMF money.
Last September—as my hon. Friend the Minister for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said— the United States and Japan vetoed an IMF loan about which Vietnam has been desperately optimistic. Until relations are restored with the IMF, other multilateral agencies and private banks will probably keep away.
Both British and European aid stopped in 1979 in protest at the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. While the troops remained there, it was accepted that there was little chance of restoring economic ties with the west; but, as the troops withdrew, expectations mounted inside Vietnam, which expected a sudden rush of unfettered foreign funds. That, of course, was not to be: western Governments, apart from Sweden, have found new reasons to leave the Vietnamese to deal with their economic problems alone. For the British Government, the occupation became only one consideration in the question whether to resume the aid programme: the goalposts were moved—as we have seen so often with Cambodia—and the ban has continued.
We are told that the Minister of State visited Vietnam recently. Unfortunately, he has not made a full statement to the House, and newspaper reports have not made it clear whether he offered aid conditional on compulsory repatriation. If we read between the lines, however, that seems to have formed part of his conversation with Vietnamese Ministers. It is unfortunate that his mission to Hanoi left that impression; not surprisingly, the Vietnamese resented such an approach.
If the Government seriously want to boost economic growth in Vietnam, rather than merely securing their own repatriation policy, there is much that they can do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has said, they should press the United States to end its comprehensive economic boycott; more important, the United States must withdraw its veto on assistance to Vietnam from the multilateral agencies. It is ridiculous that IMF officials should be able to go to Vietnam, write a glowing report and express enthusiasm about giving the country aid, while the United States—the largest shareholders in the IMF, as well as in the World bank—can pull the plug on its officials' recommendations.
Within the international agencies—the World bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development bank and the European Community—Britain should be advocating funding for investment in Vietnam's infrastructure. The lack of roads, railways, water supplies, power and telephones hampers development at all levels—from grass roots community work to inter-regional trade and investment projects by foriegn companies.
I hope that before long the Minister will find that she can announce a bilateral aid programme consisting of substantial technical and financial assistance to help industry and agriculture to get back on their feet. Britain has great expertise in telecommunications and oil. Vietnam desperately needs that expertise. Moreover, that age-old skill of ours—English language teaching—is also much in demand in Vietnam. Until translators are trained, western instruction and advice will be limited.


The Government should also fund the work of the development agencies. I hope that the Minister's response to the submissions that they have made to her will be rapid. I repeat that in order to boost foreign investment and trade the Government ought to provide export credit guarantees to British companies in their dealings with Vietnam.
British Telecom and British Petroleum have already signed contracts to work in Vietnam, but smaller companies need Government assurances before embarking on such a long-term and uncharted course. We visited one of the rural co-operatives and saw the enthusiasm of the Vietnamese workers. They showed us with pride their lacquer work, rush work and other rural products. They have great enthusiasm, but their resources are extremely limited. They are desperate to sell their beautiful lacquer work in other countries. They pressed us to push their case.
We saw many women working in the co-operatives. They work extremely hard there and also as the prime producers of food. That has an adverse effect on their health. The Overseas Development Administration is supposed to be enthusiastic about the development of opportunities for women. Aid for Vietnam would help them. They are in desperate straits.
While Vietnam remains isolated, it is not surprising that the Vietnamese lose hope. Instead of taking flak from the United States for forcibly repatriating boat people, the British Government could be tackling the main source of the problem by leading a concerted international effort to end Vietnam's economic isolation. I hope that the Minister will say as much in her reply.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), I welcome the debate, if not the hour at which it is taking place. It is rather sooner for me to respond on this issue than I had hoped when we discussed the matter at Question Time on 12 March. The proposals from the NGOs had arrived in my office literally that day, so I have not had much chance to examine them. The suggestions that are now coming forward are sensible and worthy of thorough discussion. While I will not hold up anything, I must do what needs to be done thoroughly. I make that point as a precursor to the rest of my comments tonight.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) have taken part in the debate. They have long experience of these issues and have visited Vietnam together on more than one occasion. The Government and hon. Members in all parts of the House—and many members of the general public, thanks to television—are aware how sad Vietnam is. The people there live in extreme hardship. The poverty is grinding and, despite the increasing agricultural capacity, they still have great need.
We must be realistic and appreciate that Vietnam's relations with the west have been strained in recent times by a number of factors. There are three main ones. The first is the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, and I shall return to that. The second has been the tide of emigrants, many of them economic emigrants

rather than refugees as defined in international agreements. They have left Vietnam for other countries in the region. Many of them have left in recent years, and particularly last year. We cannot ignore that, because behind it lies Vietnam's responsibility towards its own citizens, and that is bound to have a bearing.
The third factor that has greatly influenced Vietnam's relations with the west—I shall discuss this issue at some length—has been the problem that Vietnam has with the international financial institutions. Vietnam has had major arrears in payments to the IMF and to the Asian Development bank.
On the first factor—the Vietnamese in Cambodia—we welcome the fact that the withdrawal of Vietnamese combat units from Cambodia seems to have been completed at the end of last year. We believe that some Vietnamese may be back in Cambodia. We hope that they are there as advisers and are wanted by the Cambodian people. So it would not be correct to say that all the Vietnamese have gone from Cambodia, nor will that probably ever be the case. But if they are there in a peaceful role, that is much better than the situation that has existed for many years.
The second and third factors are continuing to pose substantial obstacles to the establishment of the good relations that we wish to establish with the Vietnamese Government. I mention that because when the Minister of State visited Hanoi following the EC-ASEAN meeting in Kuching, he made many efforts with his interlocutors there to get a result by which we could move forward in our relations with the Vietnamese Government.
The majority of participants at the meeting of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees steering committee in January accepted that mandatory repatriation of boat people, who have been determined through internationally accepted procedures not to be refugees, should begin on 1 July 1990. A full consensus would have enabled an orderly and internationally supported programme to go ahead. But that, sadly, was blocked by the United States and Vietnam, the latter because, I think, it believed that it could be to its economic advantage to agree with the United States to block it at that time, and the former for the reasons that we know, together with the hurt, which seems to overshadow all else in the minds of Americans when approaching this issue.
The American position, of course, is that repatriation should be confined to volunteers. We should prefer that, but that is not possible at present because it is clear that such an approach would not make a significant impact on the large numbers present in Hong Kong— numbers that represent an increasing and intolerable burden on the finances and physical facilities of Hong Kong. That is not to say that we have come to a halt on the issue. We have not. We shall continue to try to obtain an agreement from the Vietnamese Government to take the responsibility for Vietnamese people to return to Vietnam. There are letters outstanding between the British and Vietnamese Governments, and we await a response from Hanoi on this issue at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned his efforts in Washington, and I am grateful to him for what he sought to do there with members on the Hill and also with officials on the vexed issue of the return of the boat people. I shall be going to Washington next month and I, too, shall try to bring some light into this difficult subject. We cannot ignore the fact that there are many


people—who are not refugees—in Hong Kong whom Vietnam should accept back and whom we should encourage to go back voluntarily, if possible, but whom, if not, we should return just as, for example, the United States, will return those who come illegally to the United States and as so many other countries do. We must resolve the issue, and I should not want it to be said that we can ignore the situation.

Mr. Lester: The problem is that, when one makes that comparison to State Department officials, they constantly reiterate that Hong Kong is returning not economic migrants but political refugees to a tyrannous Government. They will not accept our case that the boat people are economic migrants. The Americans say that those people are returning to a tyrannous Government who operate on the lines of the 1979 Vietnamese Government, not the Government in 1990. I warn my right hon. Friend before she arrives in Washington that the argument about sending back Haitians and Mexicans drips off people there like water off a duck's back.

Mrs. Chalker: We shall have to continue our efforts to bring those who are not yet up to date in the United States up to date with the realities of Vietnam. As my hon. Friend said, that is being done day in and day out in Washington. It is obvious that we must bring people in the United States further up to date.
There is perhaps one piece of good news, which relates to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe also mentioned. There seems to be a slowdown of the departure of people from Vietnam and of arrivals in Hong Kong. That is due to the fact that the Vietnamese have responded especially now by prosecuting the people who were organising others to leave Vietnam and who go first by land and then by sea to Hong Kong, with the hope that they could be resettled somewhere else. That policy is beginning to work, although it is early to say that after only a couple of months' figures this year.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister accept the point that we have all been making continually, which is that it is sheer grinding poverty that drives many of these people to leave Vietnam and to try their luck elsewhere? Many of them believe that, once they get to Hong Kong, relatives in America will assist them to get to America. While we were in Vietnam in September, the Vietnamese authorities were already making strenuous efforts to keep their own people in the country. However, unless we address the problem of poverty in Vietnam, there is no point in talking about persuading the Vietnamese to keep their people or to take them back. Unless we address that problem, we shall not solve it.

Mrs. Chalker: I used the very same words at the beginning of my remarks—the grinding poverty in Vietnam. I fully understand what the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun have said. That is the very thing that the Vietnamese Government, particularly since 1987, are trying, with economic reforms, to put right. But I also accept that they cannot do it on their own and need assistance.
When my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office visited Vietnam in February, he had, as I have already mentioned, some pretty wide-ranging discussions. Indeed, he signed an agreement

that would speed up the voluntary return of the boat people from Hong Kong. We have already told the Vietnamese Government of the financial assistance to help them to manage the return of their people from Hong Kong. While it is not the financial assistance for which the hon. Lady has been asking, it is important to the Government of Vietnam.
My hon. Friend also explained that the continued failure to come to a real decision—the thing about which we are now in correspondence with the Government of Vietnam is very important. It is fair to say that a month after his return from Hanoi we hope for better news from Foreign Minister Thach, because we believe that the Vietnamese are concerned to settle this issue, having accepted that over a three-year period, as part of the comprehensive plan of action adopted by the international conference on Indo-China refugees in June last year, they will abide by that.
I turn from those matters, which are the inevitable background to the whole question of assistance to Vietnam, to the heart of the problem. I mentioned certain figures in answer to questions on 12 March and on other occasions. I will now give the hon. Lady and the House an update on the question of the arrears so that there is no disagreement between us.
The figures I gave on 12 March were for the end of last year. We have been notified that the arrears outstanding to the International Monetary Fund are $133·3 million and to the Asian Development bank $6 million. But the hon. Lady is quite right in saying that the situation has now stabilised, because repayments have started again. We very much welcome that, just as I welcomed the economic reform programme upon which Vietnam has embarked. I was not the least bit grudging about it; I am delighted that they are doing it. They are going in the right direction, I believe. They have declared that they wish to free their economy from the controls that they have previously imposed upon it and to let market forces assist in the regeneration of the economy.
There is evidence that these figures are beginning to work, particularly in agriculture, although the hon. Lady is right to say that they can be realised only when they have the capacity at least to use fertilisers wisely. I use those terms because I think that the overuse of fertilisers in a fairly fertile land would be a mistake for our environment in the future. So we hope that that information on how to use modern techniques wisely in rebuilding their land will also be part of any future aid programme. We are not at that stage yet; there is a long way to go in that reform programme; but I very much hope that progress can be made and that we will see sustained programmes of economic reform which they will agree with the IMF and the World bank.
I hope that perhaps a shadow programme will be put in place. I believe that I am right in saying that this can be done by Vietnam before there is IMF board agreement. I mention this because the hon. Lady laid great stress on the IMF staff report on the situation. It is a good report—nobody denies that—but I think that she knows that until the IMF board has accepted it, an economic recovery programme cannot be worked out. That is why we all regret that the situation was blocked at the meeting in September last year by the United States and Japan. It cannot be unblocked without the agreement of those


countries because of the percentage of agreement which has to be reached in the board before a programme can go ahead.
I have been considering carefully what can be done in the meantime before full agreement has been reached with the IMF. We have made it clear to the Vietnamese authorities that we will be prepared to consider a modest bilateral aid programme once we have their co-operation in reaching a comprehensive solution to the boat people returning from Hong Kong. We think we will then be able to assist in three ways, one of which I have already mentioned in the House.
The first is by supporting financially the programme for NGOs for community-based humanitarian development activities in Vietnam, not only in the areas from which the boat people have come but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe indicated, in other areas, because overall regeneration will be helpful. We believe that the NGOs, certainly in the first instance, may be the best way of generating activity. It takes quite a long while to set up any aid programme in a country where one has not previously been active, or where one has not been active over a long period. Certainly the NGO proposals which we have received are being examined in that way.
The second proposal is to consider a modest technical co-operation programme, initially emphasising training for Vietnamese people in the English language, both in Vietnam and possibly for some in the United Kingdom.
The third and most important proposal in regard to the debate is that once Vietnam has reached an accommodation with the international financial institutions, the United Kingdom would be prepared to join the international organisations and the other bilateral aid donors in supporting an adjustment programme through the provision of programme aid. But all those things depend not only on getting progress soon in Washington but on getting progress from Hanoi, too. It is in Vietnam's

best interests that it should reach as quickly as possible a comprehensive solution to the problem of the boat people in Hong Kong.
I want to say a further word about the NGO programmes. I have said that I am anxious that they should be able not only to help the people in the areas from which the boat people come but more generally. As I said on 12 March, we first discussed this with the NGOs on 14 November when the Secretary of State and I had our first meeting with them. In recent weeks we have had a number of further approaches about help and aid to Vietnam. Some have come from agencies that have their own programmes in the country, sometimes operated by sister organisations from different countries. I am actively considering how best to move in that direction.
I agree with very much, though not quite everything, that has been said in the debate. Obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe felt sincerely that we should have had a programme up and running for the time when the Vietnamese withdrew from Cambodia. That would have been exceedingly difficult, because programmes cannot be arranged in an on-off fashion. In other words, situations change and the programme needs to be very much up to date. I have no doubt that our European partners, like ourselves, will be prepared to consider sensible reconstruction programmes hand in hand with the economic recovery which we hope to see starting very soon in Vietnam. We shall go on working to clear the obstacles, but there is more than one signatory to clearing the obstacles, as with any agreement.
We need the agreement of the Vietnamese to take on the responsibility for the return from Hong Kong. We also need a change of heart and an updating of attitudes in the United States so that once and for all we can resolve this awful problem which has been to the detriment of the ordinary Vietnamese people for far too long. We shall do all that we can to resolve it as quickly as possible, but we need the agreement of the United States and of Vietnam if we are to make good progress.

Orders of the Day — Poll Tax (Northumberland)

Mr. A. J. Beith: The purpose of this debate at almost four o'clock in the morning is not to continue the general argument about the merits and principles of the poll tax—an argument which rages not only between parties but within the ranks of the Conservative party, the party currently governing the country, some of the potential future leaders of which wish to make it clear that they did not support the tax in principle. I am opposed to the poll tax; I believe it to be an unfair tax—perhaps the most unfair in the recent history of this country. Administratively, it is also an unduly expensive tax to collect, which adds to the burden on the taxpayers. I hope that we shall soon see the back of it, and have a local income tax instead.
The purpose of the debate is to plead for something to be done urgently about the position in the parts of Northumberland that I represent, even within the limits of the poll tax in its first year. Clearly, this year we are talking about modifying the applications of the community charge system rather than about being able to remove it at this late stage. However, it is my wish that next year we get rid of the tax completely and replace it with something better.
I shall refer to Northumberland as a whole, and to the Berwick and Alnwick districts. I shall draw special attention to the borough of Castle Morpeth—I have given the Department of the Environment special notice of that intention—because of the particular difficulties that arise there. I shall refer to other specific problems, such as those facing people in sheltered housing, and the questions of second homes, of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and of village shops.
Northumberland is one of the largest counties in England, but one of the smallest in population. Delivery of services to so small a population in so large an area is a great deal more expensive than delivery of services in a compact urban area. Associated with the scattered nature of the area are various other problems. The education system has been built up on a three-tier basis to cater for the particular needs of the area. Whether that was the right way to proceed is a matter of some argument, but it is undoubtedly a costly system to operate and presents specific problems.
Other problems have recently been brought to our notice, such as the large number of timber-framed buildings among the county's schools. That was the subject of a deputation with which I visited the Department of Education and Science. Many costly repair jobs need to be carried out in such schools, a number of which had to be closed for the day during the recent storms because they are unsafe in high winds.
Therefore, we have all sorts of problems, some of which are common to many areas, but many of which apply especially to an area as scattered as Northumberland.
The county council element of the poll tax accounts for over 80 per cent. of the charge, with a further 6·5 per cent. being attributable to the police authority. I submit that it was impossible for the county to peg its spending to the Government's recommended level. Northumberland has lost out badly in the change in the system of central Government support. If the formula had not been changed, the county would have had a standard spending

assessment of about £149 million, instead of £142 million. That difference means £30 per head for community charge payers.
The Government seem to be under some misapprehension about the county's finances. The county treasurer tells me that the Government still seem to think that the county has balances of £24 million, earning interest of £4 million, whereas its balances amount to only £11 million, earning interest of £2 million. In setting its budget, the county council had to allow for care in the community and for highway maintenance. The county's roads have been described by the district auditor as having deteriorated relative to the national position and therefore need greater expenditure. It has also had to cater for property maintenance. The Audit Commission said that budget provision for maintenance needed to be increased. So there were several reasons why it had to make additional provision.
Liberal Democrats on the county council argued that it would be possible for the county to set a somewhat smaller budget and, therefore, levy a lower community charge. They put forward proposals which would have reduced the county precept by about £20 a head. Before the Minister gets too excited and says that it is all the fault of the Labour-controlled county council, he must take into account the fact that the Conservatives on the county council did not agree with us. They took the view that the budget should be reduced by only about £60,000, which would have reduced the charge by less than 50p a head. I make that point not to enter into a party-political wrangle, but simply to show that no party believed that there was scope to come anywhere near the Government's recommended level for the community charge. The party that came nearest to it was my own. Even then, it achieved only a £20 reduction, mainly by proposing to withdraw from the budget items that were not likely to be completed in the current financial year, for which budgetary provision was inappropriate.
So much of the community charge is accounted for by the county precept that the boroughs and districts can do little to affect the level of charge in their areas. But they, too, have been affected by changes in the system of calculation. The borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed has complained that its SSA is inexplicable compared with similar authorities. It made the comparison, for example, with Teesdale, which is similar in size and population. The two authorities have among the smallest populations in the country. Both serve large, rural areas with scattered populations. But they have different levels of community charge, which arise almost entirely from different SSAs, for which there is no clear, understandable explanation.
Alnwick district council complains that the real rate of inflation is simply not recognised in the figures. After the county precept, that is the reason why poll tax levels in those two districts are £321 and £342 respectively—each just over £70 above the Government figure. It means that anyone lucky enough to obtain transitional relief does not receive relief on the £70.
In Berwick and Alnwick many people are on wages just above the rebate maximum. Therefore, many families face increases of hundreds of pounds in their liability. I am talking about families whose incomes are just above rebate levels. They are on genuinely low incomes and cannot meet such increases. They do not know where they will find the money to pay. Many couples will be over £5 a week worse


off than before the poll tax in the first year, with worse to come in future years as transitional relief and safety net provisions are removed.
Families with a low-earning 18-year-old in the house will, in many cases, face financial disaster. People just do not know where the money will come from. Many live in remote communities with limited services. I have had representations from one family facing a poll tax bill of £1,000, who have never had a dustbin emptied. They have never seen a dustman because they live in a remote cottage way up in the forest, to which it would be difficult to provide regular refuse collection services.
Some communities have greatly increased parish precepts added to their poll tax bills because their villages have lost business rate income. Some villages had particularly good business rate income if there was some industrial undertaking, mine or quarry in the area. Many people in such areas are farm workers who previously lived in rate-free accommodation on low wages. That relief from rates and rent was part of the wage structure. The wages board has not seen fit to make any provision to compensate for the disappearance of the rate-free facility. Some of the large estates, such as that of the Duke of Northumberland, have decided to pay their employees' poll tax. But many farmers, especially small farmers, still have to face that decision. Some do not see how they can manage it in current agricultural conditions. Farm workers do not see how they will be able to manage such hugely increased costs and a level of outgoings for which they do not have the means.
So far I have referred mainly to the Berwick and Alnwick districts of my constituency, but the most dramatic effects of all, about which the Minister will be aware if he has studied the details, are found in the Castle Morpeth borough. Unlike other councils in the north, that council contributes to the safety net system. I believe that it is the only council between Humberside and the Scottish borders to be a contributor. Its neighbours have had their poll tax bills reduced by substantial safety net grants; the charge in neighbouring Wansbeck has been reduced by £127 per head.
Castle Morpeth spends per head about the same as Alnwick and significantly less than Wansbeck district council, but its charge payers will pay £90 more than those in the neighbouring authorities. They will pay substantially more than those under another authority that spends more, which makes complete nonsense of the Government's intention that the system should make councils accountable for the level of services and the cost of them.
The problem has arisen because the average rateable value in Castle Morpeth is boosted by the wealthiest suburbs of Newcastle, such as Ponteland and Darras Hall, and by substantial areas of executive housing in places such as Heddon-on-the-Wall and Lancaster Park. Those areas include many of the gainers under the poll tax system. In the communities that I represent in the northern and eastern parts of Castle Morpeth and in parts of Morpeth in the neighbouring constituency rateable values are low. Those values reflect the lower incomes of the residents of those areas, many of whom live in old colliery houses that they have bought. Some families are in their first home and they struggled to buy such houses because

they knew that they had a low rateable value and because they were relatively cheaper to buy. Those houses represent such families' only chance of getting a start in housing.
I plead with the Minister to consider the plight of people living in old colliery houses, some of them unmodernised, in places such as Stobswood, Broomhill, Ellington colliery, Linton and Lynemouth. The Minister should also consider the large areas of council housing such as at Widdrington Station and Hadston and the small rural cottages in areas such as Scots' Gap, Cambo and Middleton. He would discover that people in such places face horrific increases.
Every couple living in Castle Morpeth in a house with a rateable value of less than £155 will pay £408 more than they paid in rates last year. Most of the houses in the areas that I mentioned have rateable values of less than £155. Unless the families concerned are on rebates, they face increases of £408.
The Minister should consider some specific examples. During the debate on the Budget I referred to a couple who wrote to me whose income is just above the rebate limit. The man is a joiner who earns £136·89 a week. His rates were £255 a year, but the poll tax to be paid by that couple after all reliefs will be £672 a year. Where can that couple find another £400 on an income of £136 a week? The Minister should try to tell me how those people can find that money.
In another family the mother and father work and their joint income, after tax, is just under £200 a week. Their eldest son has started work, he brings home £80 and another teenager is still at school. On a three-bedroomed house they paid £440 in rates. However, the total poll tax that the family will have to pay will be more than £1,200 a year, an increase of £840 a year. I cannot see, and they cannot see, from where that extra money will come.
These villages and communities are in uproar. I have 800 petition forms from a village of 1,000 people. Will the Minister look up from his notes to see—if I can engage his attention for a moment—the number of people who have signed the forms not only to show how angry they are, but to say that unless they get a satisfactory explanation, they will seriously consider not paying the community charge. Those are not people engaged in a political demonstration, but people who do not know where they can find such money.
I have another set of papers that were passed to me at one of the packed meetings that I have been attending in my constituency. On them people have listed the hundreds of pounds by which their community charge exceeds the amount they paid in rates. The petition forms are from the village of Widdrington Station and the letters are from the village of north Broomhill. They are all from people in relatively poor communities who are being asked to find huge amounts of additional money.
I do not understand how the people are to find that money. Therefore, will the Minister look seriously at the gross anomaly which has made the position in Castle Morpeth so much worse that it is in other comparable and neighbouring areas? I plead with him to make some provision to ease the terrible plight of people facing such a level of poll tax.
Many of the calculations, not only for Castle Morpeth, but for other areas, assume that people will receive the limited transitional relief up to the poll tax level that the Government said each authority should set. We already


know that many people will not receive that relief; for example, people who move after 1 April will lose any entitlement to that relief, and additional household members will not qualify for it. However, few people realised, particularly when the Minister of State made his commitment at the Conservative party conference, that the promise did not apply to pensioners living in flats in sheltered housing schemes such as those provided by Anchor Housing, the Royal British Legion and local housing trusts, where the rates are paid to the housing association which, in turn, pays the local authority.
Such people definitely paid rates. They are well aware of that now, as many of their rents are being reduced by up to £30 a month because the housing association is no longer responsible for paying over rates. The people have become responsible for a personal community charge, and the rates element has been removed from the rent.
However, to their surprise, some local authorities have been told that they cannot pay transitional relief to such people because they were not ratepayers. If they are not classed as ratepayers, as they expected to be, the alternative would seem to be that they were non-ratepayers and were, therefore, entitled to special transitional relief.
One of my local authorities asked the Department of the Environment whether this was the answer to the problem, but was told that such people could not have special transitional relief because they contributed to the rates by the process which I have just described. Therefore, those people cannot win. When I raised this matter during the debate late on Monday night, I asked the Minister of State to have a closer look at the matter. He was unconvinced, to put it mildly, that the position was as I have described it. However, I assure him that local authorities were being given such advice. I sincerely hope that, since then, the Government have devised some fresh advice and found some way of getting transitional relief, or special transitional relief, to many of those pensioners, particularly pensioner couples living in sheltered housing schemes.
Such couples have often taken on more expensive housing to meet their needs in old age. The decision to go into a sheltered housing scheme has usually committed them to quite a high rent. They have come to the conclusion that it is best for them to be in such a scheme where there is a good heating system, they can be kept warm, and there is a warden on the premises. As they become older and perhaps more frail, it will be a secure and sensible place in which to be housed. They have committed themselves to the limit to do so, and have no margins to spare. If they are not given the benefit of transitional relief, the impact on them will be very severe. Some of them would have to give up being in sheltered housing. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring us some better news on that score.
The poll tax brings other pressures and problems. A major feature of my constituency is second homes. There are many of them, and that is not without attendant difficulty. In some areas there is a strong feeling that properties that have become second homes would have been better kept in full-time occupation as homes for families. That has made the councils feel that it is morally justifiable, and in many ways desirable, that second homes should bear the full burden of the double community charge. That is the standard community charge at the normal two-person rate. All local authorities in the area

have decided to opt for this system. It seemed to them to be a reasonable response to the growing pressure to create second homes in areas where there is a housing shortage.
Some of the properties faced with the double community charge will be converted to properties that are subject to business rates under regulations that the Government have brought forward. I refer to properties that are let for a minimum number of weeks in the year. That will still leave a number of properties that will be the subject of contention. It is doubtful whether some properties are suitable for long-term human habitation for other than in the summer. Some properties used as holiday cottages would, without substantial improvement, be unsuitable for winter use.
The councils have had to consider some of the special cases and difficulties, and I have drawn their attention to a number of them. I have received quite a few letters from clergy who live in vicarages and plan to retire to homes in my constituency. There seems to be a tremendous number of clergy from Lambeth at this end of the country—not the Archbishop of Canterbury but members of his staff—ranging to the other end of the country who are all hoping to retire to my constituency. Many of them live in vicarages and are buying a house for their retirement. They find that it will be beyond their means to pay the double community charge. For example, there is a missionary couple who are working in Africa for no salary. They are being maintained on a mission station. They are keeping a house—it is only a cottage—for when they return to the United Kingdom. They have no means to pay the double community charge, and they are not entitled to rebates because they are not in the country.
There are difficulties with service personnel who are required to live in married quarters, to pay rent for those quarters and to pay a community charge at the quarters, and who are liable also to the double or standard community charge in my constituency. If the councils were to exempt those who are required to live elsewhere because of their work, as the Government have suggested they could, and levy a nil community charge on their properties, there would be a huge loophole. People could easily say, because they have a second home in my constituency, "We are required to live elsewhere." Many of them would have well-paid jobs which enabled them to own a substantial second home somewhere in my constituency. Many people in that category can well afford the double charge. It is a legitimate charge which they should contribute to the community. The councils have a serious problem, and it has not been satisfactorily resolved, in distinguishing between those who can reasonably be levied the double charge and those who are in real hardship.
A further problem that seems likely to arise is that the provision of bed and breakfast, one of the staple features of the tourist industry, may not prove economical as a result of the introduction of the 100-day limit, which means that those who come within its terms stay on the community charge and are not charged business rates as well. The tourist traffic in the area which I represent is not so great that it ensures that if someone makes rooms available for bed and breakfast for 100 days in the year he can obtain an income that makes it worth while to engage in that activity, bearing in mind the investment that it is necessary to make. There are anxieties among people who provide bed and breakfast.
There are anxieties also among people who have village shops. The families which do so find that they may face


business rates plus double or treble poll tax. I know of many instances where a village shop is the home for a family of three. There are the mother and father and the son or daughter who works in and helps to run the shop. His or her only income comes from the shop. People greatly fear that we shall add still further to the spiral of closing village shops that has created such serious problems in our rural areas.
Many of the matters to which I have referred are the subject of recently published regulations which have not been debated in the House. With the introduction of the poll tax only days away, I find it extraordinary that many of the regulations have not been debated, even though prayers have been tabled to enable them to be discussed. The implementation of the poll tax is the most awful shambles. One can make that comment irrespective of whether one is in favour of the poll tax or against it. Even if I were an enthusiastic supporter of the poll tax, I should still think that the present state of affairs was an appalling shambles; as an opponent of the tax, I feel it even more strongly.
I ask the Minister to look again at the specific cases that I have drawn to his attention. First, will he concede that help will be given to tenants of sheltered housing schemes? By help, I am talking not about rebates but about transitional relief or special transitional relief. It was clear to me that the Minister responsible was in some doubt about the position as recently as last Monday evening. Now that there has been time to look at the matter further, it would help if the Minister could clarify the position—if not now, certainly before 1 April.
Secondly, will the Minister look again at the position of Northumberland generally? When will we know whether we are to be capped? I know that the Minister will not make an announcement now, at 4·25 am, about which authorities are to be capped. But it would help if the hon. Gentleman told us when we shall know. Will we know by 1 April, or will all the poll tax notices have to be retrieved and the whole process started again? We need to know not least because if Northumberland is to be capped, there could be severe implications for council services.
Will the Minister re-examine in particular the case of Castle Morpeth and consider giving more transitional relief to the ratepayers and charge payers whom I have described? If, for example, he extended transitional relief in some way, it would help only those living in low-rated properties. The help would not go into the pockets of the gainers in the wealthier part of the area—the rateable values of which have put it into this difficult position. By its very nature, transitional relief goes only to people in low-rated properties. I could certainly suggest ways of easing the position on transitional relief to bring help to those suffering the greatest hardship. At the very least, will the Minister or the Secretary of State agree to meet representatives of the local authorities concerned and of Castle Morpeth, where the problem is most acute, so that they may put their argument to him?
The political atmosphere that the poll tax creates is one in which the opposition parties and the Government's critics can make hay. But that is not my purpose this morning. I can say with the strongest of feeling that in nearly 16 years as a Member of Parliament I have never seen such widespread dismay and distress in my

constituency as I have seen over the effects of the poll tax. Ministers and local authorities will find that, if nothing is done, as the year progresses more and more people will come up against the authorities because they have not paid the tax. They will fail to pay not because they are part of a political campaign—although there are those who are trying to organise such a campaign—but because they simply cannot find the money for the charge. The anxiety, distress and upset that such people feel are so great and so widespread that I must plead with the Minister to do something before it is too late.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I echo many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about the problems of setting a poll tax and protecting local services in Northumberland and throughout the country. In the northern region as a whole, one of the major problems arises from the loss of money for local authority services in that region as a result of the change.
I have here the results of an analysis that was carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) after he had questioned the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities about the northern region. The column headed
Net change in income to local authority (without safety nets)
shows that the northern region lost more than £170 million. The next column shows that, even with safety nets, that region lost more than £38 million. Obviously this is having an effect on all county and district councils in Northumberland.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who will reply to this part of the debate, is not ignorant of the situation. I understand that, not long ago, a delegation from Wansbeck district council told him about the problems they were encountering in setting the community charge. That council claims that it has lost about £7·9 million in Government grants as a result of the expenditure changes. That means that every person liable to pay has to find an extra £169. As the Minister was aware of the situation, the people of Wansbeck can hardly be blamed for feeling aggrieved and very angry.
I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed about Castle Morpeth borough council. Having spoken to my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in that area, I can say that many many dozens of villages end up contributing to the safety net. It is absolutely ridiculous. This applies to many villages in my constituency, but certainly not to the same extent. The fact that more than half of the ratepayers of Castle Morpeth will pay less under the new system does not minimise the fact that the remainder will have to pay substantially more towards the safety net for other regions. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that there ought to be some special transitional relief.
Of course, similar situations are to be found in many other regions. What is happening in respect of very low-rated properties in whole mining villages is grossly unfair. It is little wonder that there have been such uprisings against the poll tax, which has been forced on the local authorities. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) about this matter. The local authority in his area has received about 20,000 rebate applications.


The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has said that he does not want to treat this as a party political matter. I can tell him that his friends in Blyth Valley want to treat it as a party political matter. I have here a letter from the leader of the Liberal Democratic group on the council, arguing very strongly indeed the case about the need to cut services and to use savings to keep the poll tax down. Nobody likes having to levy the poll tax.
I say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and to his friends in that area that transitional relief in Northumberland is very poor and that the safety net, which is also poor and fails to help all those who need help, will be removed at some time in the future. In those circumstances, it is wise not to use reserves immediately but to leave them to help people when other relief has been removed.
I hope that the Minister will try to explain the anomalies that have occurred in Northumberland. The setting of poll tax rates by councils has highlighted what has been demonstrated throughout Britain—that the poll tax is a pernicious tax, which not only fails to take into account people's ability to pay but is unfair as between households and districts.
I could go on all night about how unfair it is, but Northumberland probably highlights many of the problems of the poll tax which should have been taken into consideration months, if not years, before it was levied on the unfortunate people of Northumberland to maintain their present level of local government services.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I shall do my best to deal with the points that have been raised in the debate. It is always interesting to see the extent to which authorities that are complaining, particularly about the grant settlements, have helped themselves. Everything that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said has to be seen against the background that Northumberland county council is spending £102 per adult above its standard spending assessment. That is some 14·9 per cent. above the income that is raised in 1989–90.
It may be said that Northumberland did not do so well as some under the grant settlements, but it cannot be denied that it is spending £102 per adult over the SSA. Saying that it is still £30 per adult worse off as a result of the changes does not explain why it is £102 per adult over its SSA. The accountability in the new system becomes clear when one compares the amounts by which the individual districts of Northumberland are spending above their SSAs with the amounts by which they increased their incomes this year.
The hon. Gentleman referred a great deal to Castle Morpeth, but Castle Morpeth is increasing its income by no less than 59·7 per cent. above its 1989–90 level. It is hardly surprising that the people there are complaining. If I lived there, I should be complaining about the overspending of my local council. Why has that council not done more to control its expenditure and to act in the best interests of its community charge payers?
If we look at other districts in Northumberland, we see that Tynedale has increased its income by 46·7 per cent. above its 1989–90 level, Blyth Valley by 35·3 per cent., Wansbeck by 24·1 per cent., Berwick by 21·8 per cent. and

Alnwick by 13·5 per cent. The increases in spending are a predominant element in any explanation of why people in Northumberland are complaining.
It is important to put that on the record at the outset. It is always important that the House should be able to consider the extent to which councils have tried to help themselves. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the councils in Northumberland have tried to take advantage of the new system to disguise substantial increases in spending.

Mr. Beith: It should also be placed on the record that not only councillors of my party but those of the Conservative party would, to a man, reject the view that the figures that the Minister has quoted describe a process by which their councils have unreasonably overspent by comparison with their previous expenditure or by what would be a reasonable amount of money to provide their services. There is agreement across all the parties about the unreasonable position in which they have been placed.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman said that at local level his party said that charges could have been reduced by £20 per adult. If people are as hard pressed as he was describing earlier, £20 would be a welcome reduction.

Mr. Beith: The Tories do not agree.

Mr. Chope: There is the continuing problem that a number of people involved in local government see themselves on the side of the producer rather than on the side of the consumer. If more local government councillors identified with the consumer there would be lower levels of expenditure and better value for money.
I think that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and I agree about one thing—that the rating system had to go. Of all the alternatives to the domestic rates, the community charge is by far the fairest system. Many people say that they would like not to have to pay anything towards the cost of local government, but if we have to pay, everybody should contribute and we should have a system which will ensure proper accountability and discretion at local level.
The Government have listened to the representations that have been made because of the change in the system. We have put many transitional arrangements in place to ease the change. That is fair. Most of those arrangements were made in response to representations—for example about capital limits being too low in relation to the cut-off point for community charge rebate entitlement. The Government responded to the representations made and raised the limit.
The Government have also listened to those people who said that, as a result of the change from the rates to the community charge, some people face a significant increase in their bills. That is why we introduced the transitional relief scheme, which limits the increases arising from any structural change to no more than £3 a week. I emphasise the expression "structural change" because increases in bills arise for reasons other than changes in the system. Where community charge bills are higher than the Government's assumptions, it is for local authorities to justify them. It is not for the Government to validate them by compensating individuals for increases that arise from the spending decisions of individual authorities.
We announced last July that total standard spending, in the context of the revenue support grant settlement, would


be £32·8 billion in 1990–91. That represents an increase of 11 per cent. over the equivalent amount for 1989–90. It is nonsense to suggest that the Government have not allowed enough for inflation. Total standard spending is about 4 per cent. higher than local authority budgets for last year, but that is because last year local authorities spent almost 7 per cent. more than their grant-related expenditure assessments.
As is the case for transitional relief, the validation of past spending decisions is not the role of Government. The figure that we have announced for total standard spending shows a significant increase over last year's equivalent figure, and Government support for local authorities in the coming year will be 8·5 per cent. higher than in the present year. That is a fair settlement.
Nor is it unrealistic to expect authorities to be able to budget within their standard spending assessments. The Audit Commission has identified £900 million per year in savings which could be achieved by local authorities. Some progress has been made on that front, but there is still plenty of scope for improvement.
At the heart of the revenue support grant is the system of standard spending assessments, which take into account the social, geographic and demographic characteristics of individual authorities and, using a methodology that has been carefully researched and developed, arrives at a figure that represents the amount that it would be appropriate for that authority to spend to provide a standard level of service.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the different problems in Northumberland. Those differing needs, compared with other areas, are reflected in the standard spending assessments. The criteria that we used were extensively discussed with the local authority associations.
I shall deal with the question of low rateable value grant, as it applies to Castle Morpeth. That grant applies when the average domestic rateable value of a district is less than £150, with the result that the change in domestic rates to the community charge, even taking into account safety net contributions, would have resulted in significant increases for householders. The Government thought that it was right, in such circumstances, to provide some extra protection for charge payers.
The way in which the grant is calculated means that people in one district may benefit from it, while others in a neighbouring district living in identical houses may not. That is inherent in the system. The point is, however, that in administering low-rateable-value grant we are looking at the revenue-raising capacity of an authority as a whole. Within any district council area there will be properties with rateable values below the average and properties with rateable values above it; but it is the average rateable value which is important, because an authority with a higher average than its neighbour will have been able to raise more in domestic rates from a given poundage. There will thus be a correspondingly smaller difference between the revenue base of that authority under rates and its revenue base under community charge. Whatever the rateable value of an individual's home, the position of charge payers will not be affected as significantly in an authority with a higher average as in one with a lower average.
Individuals in Castle Morpeth living in houses with low rateable values have the protection of the transitional relief scheme, which was designed specifically to provide protection at the individual as opposed to the authority level. In Castle Morpeth, any property housing two or more people will benefit from transitional relief if its rateable value is less than £157·45. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed agrees with that calculation.
As I mentioned earlier, transitional relief is calculated on the basis that an authority's community charge is set in line with the Government's assumptions. In the case of Castle Morpeth, the assumed community charge is £310·96, but the charge actually set—£438·49—exceeds that amount by £127. That means that charge payers in Castle Morpeth will have to pay £2·45 a week extra over and above the threshold for transitional relief, which for most people is £3 a week.
As I have said, Northumberland county council has set a precept substantially above its standard spending assessment, and Castle Morpeth's budget repesents spending of more than 30 per cent. above its SSA and almost 60 per cent. more in income in 1989–90. It is for the individual authorities to justify those increases to their charge payers.

Mr. Beith: Even if Castle Morpeth and Wansbeck had each charged only the Government's recommended target, Castle Morpeth charge payers would still by paying £70 a head more than those in Wansbeck.

Mr. Chope: That may be the case in the first year of the system, because of the operation of the safety grant and the transitional reliefs. That is because of the current differences in rateable values in those areas. Under the existing domestic rating system, ordinary individual householders living in Northumberland cannot tell from their rates bill how efficient their council is compared with an adjoining district council in the same county. Under the new system, everyone will be on a standard basis and one community charge can be compared with another. The higher charge will clearly reflect either inefficiency or extravagance or, in some cases, a higher level of service.
It is inevitable, however, that if the principle of a transitional arrangement is to be accepted—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not disagree with it—the problems that he cites will be thrown up. That reflects the fact that average rateable values have been higher in one area than in another.
The hon. Gentleman referred to transitional relief for those living in sheltered accommodation. When the Government announced the transitional relief scheme last October, it was the subject of detailed discussions with local authority practitioners. It was clear from those discussions that local authorities would, in general, be able to adapt their systems to incorporate transitional relief, provided that the scheme was administratively straightforward and based on information readily available in local authorities.
At the heart of the scheme is a comparison between rates and the assumed community charge. It emerged quickly from the discussions that this necessitated using, as the basic unit of the relief scheme, hereditaments with a rateable valuation shown on the valuation list. Most domestic hereditaments have a separate entry on that list, but there are cases where a single entry is shown for a


hereditament comprising a number of separate residential units. That can occur in the case of houses in multiple occupation, barracks and bases occupied by service personnel and some sheltered housing developments.
In such cases, the effect is that, although there is no theoretical bar to the grant of relief, it is likely that the rateable value of the hereditament, which is the basic unit of the calculation, will be too high to give a rates bill that is more than £156 a year under either one or two community charges. There is, however, no practical solution. Where there is no rateable value for a particular residential unit, there is no assumed rates bill to form the basis of the comparison.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands and accepts that it would not be sensible to ask the valuation office to establish domestic rateable values for individual units within the collective sheltered accommodation box to which he referred. That would be a difficult exercise to perform, just as we near the end of the domestic rateable value system. It means that some people cannot benefit from the transitional relief scheme. However, it does not mean that they are worse off. It simply means that they do not fall within the scope of the scheme, which was designed to provide additional help in specially defined circumstances. Residents in sheltered accommodation who have low incomes and savings—the recently announced increase in the capital limit will benefit many pensioners—will be able to claim community charge rebates which will provide substantial reductions in their community charge bills.
In the discussions leading up to our announcement on the rate support grant settlement for this year we received a good many representations, including representations from Northumberland local authorities, all of which we considered carefully.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the Minister will clarify the other side of the coin. When the point that he has just made was put to the local authority it asked whether it could make special transitional relief payments to these people; as they

are not ratepayers it asked whether they could be dealt with under the special transitional relief arrangements for non-ratepayers. However, it was told that it could not do that, either. The Minister ought to open that door, thereby providing some help for those people who, I am sure he agrees, are, in principle, proper beneficiaries, if only those arrangements could be made.

Mr. Chope: I shall look again at that point, but the principle is that residents do not get relief—not because they are not ratepayers but because they do not qualify on the basis of the comparison between rates and the community charge. The special scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred is for non-ratepayers. However, I understand his point, and with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities I will see whether there is a way round it. Nevertheless, this was all done in the context of the arrangements that we made with local authorities to try to devise a scheme which could be easily implemented. Some people may say that it is unfair that a person who moves house should be disqualified from assistance under the transitional relief scheme, but any transitional relief scheme has to be based upon firm principles. I do not believe that there is any way out of that difficulty.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that when we considered all the representations, including those from Northumberland local authorities, we did not simply go through the motions of doing so. We were persuaded by the representations that, because of the weather conditions in Northumberland during the winter, authorities there should benefit from changes that we made to the winter maintenance element of the standard spending assessments. Where we are persuaded that adjustments to the system are justified, we are prepared to make them, and we believe that we have set for authorities in Northumberland SSAs that are fair. Our decisions took into account all the relevant factors, including those brought to our attention by the authorities. I am glad to have had this opportunity to make that clear.

Orders of the Day — Fossil Fuel Levy

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Had I been here at this early hour 20 years ago, I would have been making a very different speech about energy. It would have been along the lines of the lectures that I used to give to my geography A-level students in those days. Twenty years ago, a different set of challenges and priorities were on the agenda. For instance, I probably would have spoken about the problems of Britain's huge and relatively uncompetitive coal mining industry, employing at that time over 250,000 people. Today the mining industry is leaner and fitter. A staggering increase in productivity has been achieved, and credit must go to the management and work force for that.
I would never have dreamed 20 years ago how important private enterprise would become in Britain's energy production and distribution. Gas has been successfully privatised; private enterprise is booming in the North sea, with a record number of jobs in the offshore industry, and record investment; and shortly the electricity supply industry will be in the private sector, where it belongs.
Perhaps most striking of all, until recently, nobody, least of all me 20 years ago, had any inkling of the connection between the environment and energy generation. Now, in the 1990s—thanks in part to the efforts of the Prime Minister and others—the protection of the environment is at the top of the political agenda. That is crucial, not only to those in the energy industry but to the future of the planet.
Issues such as the protection of the ozone layer and the need to reduce gases such as sulphur dioxide, which cause acid rain, and carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming and the greenhouse effect, are now matters of great urgency. There are many ways to mitigate the influence of energy production and consumption on the environment, and one thinks of the impact of renewable energy. Energy efficiency and conservation will become increasingly important in the next decade.
We also have a contribution from the nuclear industry. Nuclear power has three clear advantages. First, it produces no sulphur dioxide or nitrous oxide, which contribute to acid rain; it produces no carbon dioxide, which is a major contributor to global warming; and it produces no gases which harm the ozone layer.
Secondly, nuclear power enhances the security of supply against abrupt changes in fuel availability and fuel prices, or disruption of indigenous supplies by the action of unions. We recall the great impact in recent years of the miners' strike.
Thirdly, nuclear power promotes, along with renewables, a diversity of supply. Nuclear is the only proven long-term alternative to fossil fuel power stations. At issue is not only the environment: we are also considering the future of the world's population and the ever-increasing demand for energy.
At present, 90 per cent. of the world's needs are supplied by fossil fuel. Clearly, the global geochemical system is incapable of accommodating fossil fuel combustion products at the current rate of production. To stabilise carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, it will be necessary to reduce emissions by about 20 per cent. by the year 2005, the Toronto target that was agreed not long

ago. Given that scenario, it would seem irresponsible and short-sighted to rule out the contribution of nuclear power.
Despite its obvious advantages, nuclear power is at the moment a beleaguered industry and the subject of much vilification. Much of it is emotional—understandably, in the wake of Chernobyl. However, nuclear power is increasingly under attack on the economic front. As my hon. Friend the Minister will understand, many of the misunderstandings concerning nuclear power at present arise from uncertainty over the Government's position on it and its role after the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
The Government's courageous decision to withdraw all the Central Electricity Generating Board's nuclear power stations from the privatisation process has been seen in some quarters—especially by the Opposition—as a sign that the Government have abandoned nuclear power. To put the record straight, I should welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that the Government remain committed to a continuing nuclear programme.
Nuclear Electric plc is the company which will inherit on Saturday, its vesting day, all the nuclear power stations of the CEGB. That must mean a commitment by Nuclear Electric to complete Sizewell B. I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend about that commitment, as I believe that it is vital to the morale of the new company. I say that despite the real problems surrounding Sizewell, not the least of which seems to be the escalating costs, which require the closest scrutiny by the new company and by the Department of Energy. Sizewell B is needed to maintain the status quo in nuclear power generation as the Magnox stations are closed down and decommissioned. By the time of Sizewell's completion in 1994, we shall be in a far better position to review the whole nuclear industry and its future. The successful completion of Sizewell, coming in at cost without great overruns—and, at the time of switching on, its proving the engineers and the scientists in the nuclear industry correct in their design of this unique pressurised water reactor—will enhance the future for the nuclear industry.
The other area of criticism to which I alluded was cost. At present, nuclear-generated electricity is undoubtedly more expensive than that generated by conventional fuels, but everything is relative. Nuclear power may be more expensive now than fossil fuel sources, but it would take a brave man to predict future movements in the price of energy and of world fuels.
Privatisation has, for the first time, exposed the real back-end costs of nuclear power, by which I mean the costs of fuel reprocessing and decommissioning. Fossil fuel generation does not, at present, have those extra costs to bear, but around the corner is the high cost of flue gas desulphurisation to remove the sulphur dioxide from the emissions from our coal-fired power stations. One of the problems is that much of our indigenous coal has a high sulphur content. If we are to meet the agreed European targets on the reduction of emissions, much work will need to be done. It is estimated that 6,000 MW to 8,000 MW of coal-fired generation will need to be fitted with flue gas desulphurisation processes.
The supporters of coal-fired generation are simply ignoring reality if they believe that a carbon tax of some description can be postponed idefinitely. It is, after all, from coal-fired generation that the bulk of the carbon dioxide that is pumped into our atmosphere comes. The


options for the future could be greater research and development into means of removing carbon dioxide from the emissions. There obviously are technologies, albeit small scale at the moment, that could be adopted—fluidised bed technology, for instance, which does reduce some of the emissions. But as a solution to the problem in the short term, I do not believe that these will offer anything like the scale of change that is necessary.
A second option will be to switch from coal-fired generation to gas, particularly combined cycle gas, which emits far less carbon dioxide per unit of energy than coal-fired.
Thirdly—this has nothing to do with what we want in this country but comes out of the European dimension or a worldwide dimension—in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, there may well be a tax on carbon, coal-fired and oil-fired generation of electricity. Each of these options will add significantly to the cost in the future of electricity generated from fossil fuels.
Despite the current higher costs of nuclear power, I believe that the nuclear programme must be secured. This means, under privatisation. the introduction of the non-fossil fuel obligation and of the fossil fuel levy.
The obligation will oblige the new supply companies to contract for some 8,000 MW of nuclear-generated electricity over the period 1990–98, and to spread this addition fairly over all electricity suppliers there will need to be the fossil fuel levy. This levy must not, of course, be an extra cost for customers to bear. After all, the costs of nuclear power are already included in our electricity bills. One of the great benefits of the privatisation process, I believe, is that it has made these costs transparent for the first time. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend would confirm that the levy will reduce over the eight-year period of the initial sales contracts.
Another series of myths is growing up—stoked by Opposition Members—about the decommissioning costs of nuclear power and therefore the long-term financial position of Nuclear Electric. Of course nuclear power has its decommissioning costs. Unlike coal, it has to clear up after itself, and that is an expensive process. One of the benefits of privatisation is that it has shown up these costs and presented the industry with a fresh set of challenges, but it does place Nuclear Electric in something of a special position with regard to long-term debts and liabilities. I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend could make it clear this morning what action the Government will be taking to ensure that, when the full decommissioning costs of nuclear are drawn up and included in Nuclear Electric's balance sheet, the new company will remain solvent in the early years of trading.
I believe that the privatisation of electricity has revealed many challenges, to which the nuclear industry must respond positively and effectively. This is not an uncritical apology for the nuclear industry—many mistakes have been made in the past, not least by politicians—but the continuation of nuclear power in this country is vital, first in keeping our options open for the future; secondly in protecting our security of supply; and thirdly in assisting in the battle to preserve the global environment. It would be a significant contribution, on the present scenario, to world energy needs right into the middle of the next century.
As the world's population increases at an ever-expanding rate, the demand for energy is going up and up.

The countries of the Third world, the southern hemisphere, have no prospect of building nuclear on any scale. They will turn for their energy needs to fossil fuel.
Our contribution internationally to world energy needs could be to take the strain off the fossil fuel problem by going over more to nuclear. Of course, nuclear is an important component in energy production for many of our EC partners—in France particularly, but also in Germany and in Belgium.
Privatisation has put the nuclear industry under greater scrutiny than ever before. There will no longer be a blank cheque. The industry must become more commercial and competitive. I am confident that Nuclear Electric will rise to the challenge, and I wish its management and work force every success.

Mr. Kevin Barron: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. the hon. Gentleman will require the leave of the House.

Mr. Barron: I do not know whether I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman—

Madam Deputy Speaker: For the record, the hon. Gentleman should seek the leave of the House.

Mr. Barron: With the leave of the House, I do not know whether to congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on being lucky enough to get a spot in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate at 5.10 am so that he could discuss the nuclear industry. On behalf of the Opposition I wish to comment on some issues that he brought up in his speech.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the role that the Prime Minister has played in the debate on the environment. I do not want to rehearse recent debates in the House, but I would have been happier with the Prime Minister's stance on the environment if she had stuck to her promises and especially to the commitment that she gave to the international community last year about the reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations. In recent weeks she seems to have been back-tracking on that.

Mr. Moss: indicated dissent.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but in his own words he agreed with it because, after he had mentioned the Prime Minister, he talked about the necessity to retrofit between 6 GW and 8 GW of electricity production with flue gas desulphurisation. The Prime Minister and other Ministers were talking about 12,000 MW of retrofit only last year.

Mr. Moss: The most important point is the commitment given by the Government to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions in accord with the agreements in Europe. How that is achieved is not crucial. The most important point is that those reductions will be achieved. If it is done by a transfer under privatisation to more gas-fired generation, that of itself will take out some of the sulphur dioxide emissions. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The commitment is there to reduce the sulphur dioxide levels. It will involve flue gas desulphurisation retrofitting, but the level will have to be determined after privatisation by the companies.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful for that intervention. It enables me to say to the hon. Member and to the Minister that the Government were able to negotiate lower levels of sulphur emissions from power stations and electricity generators in Britain at that time on the basis of the case that they put forward to the Commission; they said that they wanted lower levels because of the sulphur content of British coal and the necessity to protect the British coal industry. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East will have to take my word for that although we are seeking the records that were made at the time. Over the last few weeks the Government have talked about low-sulphur coal imports. I believe that those imports will create even more problems with our balance of payments which is in deficit on energy already.
Although I do not want to go too deeply into such matters, I refute the idea that gas or the importing of coal with a lower sulphur content will help us to meet those targets. As with many other things in the game of poker of electricity privatisation, on the retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation, John Baker has won once again and has got away from the commitment of a £2 billion programme that the two new generators would have to make to retrofit FGD to power stations. I refer to that simply to illustrate that things are not settled and that because the Government are tied into a tight timetable with a general election in the next two years or so, they cannot afford any more slippages. The two new generators have been able to get off the hook over the retrofitting of FGD only at great cost to the nation.
The major point of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East related to the nuclear industry. He is right to say that Opposition Members and the Labour party are not the nuclear industry's biggest supporters. I have no problem in admitting the truth of that analysis. However, if the hon. Gentleman were to talk to those in the nuclear industry or in Nuclear Electric and to ask them who their biggest enemy has been in this country, they would not refer to the Opposition, but to those who have spoken from the Government Dispatch Box over the past six months. I refer especially to what the hon. Gentleman described as the "courageous" decision to withdraw Nuclear Electric from the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the British coal industry and to its productivity increases. One of his next comments was to say how surprised he is about the extent to which private enterprise has become important to the British energy industry over the past 20 years. That has certainly been the case with North sea oil and gas, but a fundamental problem facing the nuclear industry is the lack of commitment from the Government who did not think that the industry was sustainable enough to be put into the framework into which the Government appear to be prepared to put all the other energy industries that are currently in the public sector.
It is true that the nuclear industry is beleaguered. I refer now to a comment made today at the annual British nuclear forum for Members of Parliament—

Mr. Moss: It was yesterday.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman says that it was yesterday. That is generally correct, but as far as Parliament is concerned, today is still Tuesday.
Our annual British nuclear forum for Members of Parliament was delayed because of the Government's statement last November. Indeed, Mr. John Collier called the Secretary of State's statement a "setback" for the industry. There can be no question about that—it was more like a wake than the annual British nuclear forum for Members of Parliament. It is recognised that the present position is not sustainable in the short term.
What will happen at Sizewell B in the not-too-distant future has been a matter of some concern. Obviously, the forum is concerned that it should be built and brought on stream, but we must recognise that the costs of building Sizewell B have escalated by 10 per cent. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East knows that an announcement is to be made within a month about the extra cost of Sizewell B. There will not be the replication that people had believed would occur when the other three pressurised water reactors were expected to follow straight on. In the nuclear programme, from Magnox to AGRs, the lack of replication meant that, perhaps not in the short term but in the long term, nuclear costs were far outside that of any fossil fuels for electricity generation. The total cost to the nation of Sizewell B has not yet been settled.
As we have found throughout the nuclear industry, much of the capital cost of building the nuclear power station, was found to be, although not small, not as big as we had thought. The costs of decommissioning and reprocessing were the significant factor.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East suggested that the costs of reprocessing have been exaggerated by Opposition Members. Decommissioning time scales and the costs of the different forms of decommissioning, while still not fully settled, have massively increased. It is not Opposition Members who have given those costs but BNFL.
One issue that worries BNFL—to some extent I agree with it, as do many people in energy management and planning—is that with the privatisation of electricity the Government have introduced a new commercial framework that does not bode well for the building of new generator plants, nuclear or other. BNFL is worried that generator plant that is built does not have a life-term contract. I went to the United States a couple of years ago and spoke to people who have privatised the industries over the years. The idea of building generator plants that do not have life-term contracts for the supply of electricity to area boards or state-run companies is not on there. America does not work like that. People are more likely to buy the fuel source—whether a coal mine or anything else —and the site for the plant so that they know that although the plant will not pay the same price for years, it will have longer-term contracts than we have here. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the flotation of the electricity industry has caused chaos in the British energy market.

Mr. Moss: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. How does he square that with the fact that there is no shortage of companies coming forward to build new plant, even given the scenario of the length of contracts to which he refers? Plenty of schemes are coming on to the books, from combined cycle gas through to renewables.

Mr. Barron: Plans for combined cycle gas and other plants have been submitted. Clearly everyone wants to build small plants that will be environment friendly. The


nuclear industry, the coal industry and the gas industry want to do that. If all definite plans are put together, they would amount to about 7GW of generation of electricity. Combined cycle gas is wasteful. Gas is not a long-term resource for this country. Two planned large coal-fired plants have been cancelled just in the lifetime of this Government. Along with PWRs, that does not come anywhere near the cancellation that might take place.
At this stage we may he able to take stock of generation to see what capabilities we have to generate electricity in this country. That does not get away from the fact that the new framework that has been created with the privatisation of electricity supply industry means, as the nuclear industry and everyone else agrees, that the lack of long-term contracts is not good for expenditure or the building of new generators.
Because of the short-term commercial outlook that people have been forced to adopt they must seek to recover the capital cost of building generating plant in 25 years rather than 35 years. That is extremely damaging not only to the nuclear industry, but to many others
Many of us believe that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry is fundamentally wrong as it does not take into account the need for any long-term planning for our needs. The market will be unable to supply a coherent framework of generators capable of providing our electricity in the coming decades.
I accept that mistakes were made with central planning in the past—they are there for all to see—but the framework provided by the privatisation of electricity is not a coherent one by which the country will be able to make proper strategic judgments and planning decisions to ensure the supply of electricity to our communities and industries in the future.
Obviously we could go on and on debating the issue, but the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East should be aware that many people in the nuclear industry are unhappy about what has happened in the past two years. Many others unconnected with the industry are unhappy with the headlong rush to privatise the electricity supply industry which is similar to an ideological crusade. Privatisation has not taken into account the need for strategic planning or its knock-on effects on the nuclear and other energy industries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): At this early hour it requires an interesting debate on an important topic to retain the attention of even the insomniacs among us. I am glad to say that this debate, although comparatively short, has been interesting. No one doubts the importance of the nuclear industries to the United Kingdom.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) on initiating the debate—I know that he is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Energy. Before I seek to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend and those of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I wish to put the debate into context.
In less than 36 hours from now, the United Kingdom electricity industry will be totally different from the one that we have had for the past 40 years. The Central Electricity Generating Board, the 12 area electricity boards and the two existing Scottish boards will cease

trading. At midnight on 31 March, all the assets of those major companies will pass to 19 new public limited companies which will form the electricity industry in the United Kingdom from then on.
Within the next 36 hours, a unique spot market in electricity will begin to operate, ensuring that the demand of millions of customers is met and that power stations are turned on and off so that the electricity is generated at least cost. Right now, the owners of generating stations are considering the prices to bid into the sophisticated computer model which will set prices and match supply and demand half hour by half hour.
This is clearly a major reorganisation of an industry on which every person in this country relies. Competition, which has been kept out of the industry for the past 40 years, will be released. Experience all over the world shows that that will benefit the consumer by keeping downward pressure on costs and encouraging greater efficiency. Electricity consumers will also enjoy customer rights for the first time ever.
At the same time, the standards of security of supply and safety that we have come to expect from the industry will be maintained and the operation of the integrated national grid will continue largely as before. The Director General of Electricity Supply will watch over the industry, regulate the parts which are natural monopolies and protect consumers' interests.
I know that many Members on both sides of the House have a strong interest in environmental matters, particularly energy efficiency. A number of points on this have been made today. We all accept that the electricity industry has a large role to play in helping to control the effect of man's activities on the natural environment. The reorganisation of the industry therefore includes specific duties on electricity suppliers to meet set standards in promoting energy efficiency. The renewable sources of power are being given a considerable boost by including them in the non-fossil fuel obligation. More importantly, perhaps, because the market rather than a Whitehall bureaucrat will determine investment decisions, both consumers and producers of energy will have the right signals to use energy in the least wasteful way.
This reorganisation will be a major step towards the most radical privatisation ever undertaken anywhere in the world. Within a year and a half, subject to the right market conditions, we shall have offered for sale the shares of all the area distribution companies in England and Wales, and of the fossil fuel generating companies which will come out of the CEGB.
We are, therefore, at a new dawn in more ways than one this morning. The electricity industry is moving into a new era in which it will go from strength to strength.
No one can doubt the importance that the Government place on the role of nuclear power in the electricity industry. We stated our commitment to nuclear power in the 1987 manifesto on which we were elected as a Government. Since then, preparation for privatisation has revealed many of the costs of nuclear power which were previously hidden, but our aim has not altered. Nuclear power has always made an important strategic contribution towards diversity of supply. We intend to retain the continuing benefit of this option.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East said, nuclear stations also bring considerable environmental benefits. Each gigawatt of nuclear power saves about 6 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.


Nuclear power does not contribute to acid rain. Those are important benefits which it would have been wrong to allow to be lost under the new competitive industry structure.
The non-fossil fuel obligation will ensure that nuclear power continues to play its important strategic role in electricity generation. The order setting the non-fossil fuel obligation was laid before Parliament on 16 February. It requires the public electricity supply companies in England and Wales to contract for roughly 8 GW of power from nuclear stations over an eight-year period. The figure drops slightly in the early years as some of the old Magnox stations retire, but rises again towards the end as Sizewell B comes on stream. That obligation will ensure that all existing nuclear capacity in England and Wales is contracted for well into the next decade, and that the construction of Sizewell B is completed and its output contracted for. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East.
Having set a non-fossil fuel obligation, it would have been quite wrong to fail to take account of the extra costs that the public electricity suppliers will face as a consequence. To ignore that would have put them at a considerable competitive disadvantage in what has already become a highly competitive market. All electricity customers benefit from the environmental and strategic benefit that our nuclear stations offer. Indeed, customers are paying for nuclear power in their bills at present. The fossil fuel levy for the first time identifies this element and ensures that the extra costs of non-fossil power are fairly shared out. The levy regulations were also laid before Parliament on 16 February. They set down in great detail—clearly, more detail than some Members feel that they can manage—the method by which the levy rate will be calculated and the levy collected by the director general. The Secretary of State announced on 12 February that the initial levy rate would be set at 10·6 per cent., but that it was expected to fall significantly over the next eight years.
The Electricity Act 1989 also contains a provision to permit the Secretary of State to pay grants for reprocessing, waste management and decommissioning of power stations. I shall return to that issue because there is confusion about it.
Those three main elements—the non-fossil obligation, the fossil fuel levy, and grants for nuclear back—end costs—complete the regime which is being put in place to ensure that nuclear continues to play its important strategic role. But there is an important point to understand here. All those measures would have been needed whether the nuclear stations were in the public or the private sector. All those measures were conceived and included in the Act before the premium that the financial markets would demand before investing in nuclear became clear. Certainly the fossil fuel levy is lower as a result of the decision to keep all the nuclear stations in the public sector, but a non-fossil obligation and a levy would have been required come what may.
I now turn briefly to the future of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. I was concerned about the slight pessimism reported by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. Since we took our decision last November to remove nuclear from the privatisation, some commentators have said that the nuclear industry has been

abandoned. The hon. Gentleman said that it had been referred to as a setback. Let me spell out the Government's position on nuclear once and for all.

Mr. Barron: When I described it as a setback, I was using the word that Mr. John Collier used at the British nuclear forum yesterday. As the Minister knows, Mr. Collier takes over Nuclear Electric this weekend.

Mr. Baldry: I understand that to be the context in which the hon. Gentleman reported it.
I will spell out the Government's position on nuclear once and for all. We are committed to a continuing nuclear programme. That commitment is being made manifest in solid concrete through Sizewell B, which will be completed by a substantial public sector company employing 14,000 people, running 12 nuclear stations and contributing up to 20 per cent. of our electricity needs.
Nuclear power was withdrawn from privatisation for two reasons. So far as the Magnox stations were concerned, the earlier estimates for decommissioning and waste management were simply not high enough, and it would have been quite wrong to expect future electricity consumers to pay for those past costs. Those costs are much lower per unit of output for AGR and PWR stations. The second decision, taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last November, to withdraw PWR and AGR from the sale reflected the private sector's different perception of the financial risks associated with nuclear power.
The private sector's solution to the high prices that it required to cover those risks was Government guarantees against virtually all commercial risks in the future. We were simply not prepared to underwrite such commercial risks in that way. Our solution was the fairest to both taxpayer and consumer.

Mr. Barron: Is not that precisely what the Government are doing now with the nuclear industry? They are keeping it in the public sector so that they can make grants towards all its costs, including its back-end costs.

Mr. Baldry: By ensuring that the nuclear industry remains within the public sector the Government are in a much better position to observe its costs. I shall have something to say about the costs and the financial position of Nuclear Electric. There has been some misunderstanding about those matters.
The separate decision to postpone immediate construction of PWRs beyond Sizewell B came about partly because of our success in stimulating diversity and competition in the electricity market. We recognise that the NFFO necessarily distorts the market to safeguard diversity and security of supply. Given that the prospect of a competitive, privatised market has attracted independent generators burning gas and renewables projects, and has encouraged own generation, there is no need to include new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B in the NFFO for the present. Life extension of the Magnox stations, where economic and subject to the requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate, will provide a continuing nuclear contribution and the Government will make justifiable investment available to Nuclear Electric for this purpose.
Those were our reasons for the policy decisions on nuclear power. They were not taken because nuclear power is inherently uneconomic, whatever that means. In


recent years, economic conditions, such as the low price of oil and the increased cost of capital, have not favoured nuclear's adoption on strict cost terms, but those conditions can, and probably will, change again. Should fossil prices climb, perhaps because of a recognition of the environmental cost of burning them, nuclear power should again become much more attractive.
Those are all strong reasons for maintaining the nuclear option, and that is why we have placed the portfolio of nuclear stations, together with the PWR under construction at Sizewell B, in the new public sector company, Nuclear Electric. The management and staff of the new company, drawn primarily from the CEGB, have worked tremendously hard to set up their new company in the short time available. I know that the skill and dedication that they have shown during this exercise over the past few months and, indeed, throughout the excellent generation record of the CEGB, will continue in the new company. John Collier, Nuclear Electric's chairman is determined to prove nuclear as the generating source of the future, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have every confidence that he and his staff will succeed. He has set the company the challenging goals of increased nuclear generation and a progressive reduction of the levy, getting the best out of the Magnox and AGR stations.
Sizewell B will be completed to time and cost to maintain the PWR option, and Nuclear Electric will be looking at the possibilities for fusion and small reactors, as well as assessing its priorities in research and development. As the inheritor of the CEGB's acknowledged nuclear safety expertise, Mr. Collier and his company will ensure that safety remains the No. 1 priority in running nuclear stations. The nuclear installations inspectorate continues as the ultimate independent guarantor of stringent safety at Nuclear Electric's nuclear power stations.
One of John Collier's other stated goals is to increase public confidence in nuclear power. I do not deny that our unavoidable policy decisions on the industry have not made his task any easier, but one of the benefits of privatisation has been to make clear to the consumer for the first time the actual cost of nuclear electricity. We know the rate of the fossil levy, and consumers will be able to watch it decline over the next eight years as Nuclear Electric continues to improve the efficiency of its plant.
Nuclear Electric will be publishing audited accounts in which the costs of nuclear power will be open to scrutiny rather than subsumed in the bulk supply tariff. That should help to overcome much of the uncertainty over costs that has dogged the nuclear industry, and which has come into sharp focus recently. The arguments over the costs of nuclear power can then be based on hard facts, rather than on supposition and conjecture. It is a hard fact, for example, that the price of nuclear power under the primary nuclear contract will be about 5p per kWh; this price, which we fully recognise is higher than that for fossil power, buys diversity, security of supply and a cleaner environment. I believe that they are well worth the cost, and John Collier has set himself the task of making the bargain even better.
These tasks are quite enough to be getting on with, and Nuclear Electric will not be building any new nuclear stations before 1994, when the Government will review the prospects for nuclear power. By 1994 Sizewell B will be ready to come on stream, and Nuclear Electric will have a breathing space in which to get its existing stations running well and the chance to reassess the costs of nuclear power;

the new competitive electricity market will be maturing, with independents established and the larger generators investigating new sources of power; the world's considered response to the greenhouse effect may have been more clearly set out. It will be a new world, and the ideal time to look again at nuclear power. I am confident that our nuclear expertise will be maintained over the next few years, with the prospect of a wide-ranging review in 1994.
The Government were keen to secure a future for nuclear power in reaching our decisions last November and I think that we have achieved the right balance. We very much hope that the industry will make the most of its new opportunity, as I am sure it will.
I should now like to say a few words about. Nuclear Electric's financial position to clarify a number of points that have clearly been misunderstood recently.
Nuclear Electric has been set up as a public limited company, although all its shares will be owned by the Government. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends that the company will, in one crucial respect, be no different from the private sector companies that, together with Nuclear Electric, will constitute the new electricity supply industry following privatisation. I mean, of course, that he will expect Nuclear Electric to operate commercially, effectively and efficiently. By the separation of Nuclear Electric from the other companies, and through the structure and arrangements for privatisation, Parliament and the public at large will for the first time be able to see how efficient and economic are the company's operations.
The generating licence requires the company to publish separate accounts in respect of its nuclear business. The costs of nuclear power will be transparent. My right hon. Friend made clear to the House, in his statement of 9 November 1989, that the company will not be given capital expenditure approval for any new power stations until after the review of the nuclear industry in 1994. A major aim of the chairman of the new company is to ensure that, by the time of the 1994 review, nuclear power generation will have been demonstrated to be an economic proposition.
None the less, immediate financial circumstances have required the Government to take special action. The balance sheet that the CEGB published in its 1988–89 report and accounts showed vastly increased provisions to cover the cost of decommissioning nuclear generating stations. Nuclear Electric has inherited these huge liabilities. A great deal of work is now in hand on the company's accounting policies, and we shall not he able to form a definitive view on the company's assets and liabilities until its opening report and accounts are published in the summer. However, it is clear that Nuclear Electric will require an assurance that the Government will stand behind the company to ensure that it remains able to meet the tests of solvency under the Insolvency Act 1986.
This is a matter of simple necessity, in order to assure the company's trading partners that it will be able to meet its debts as they fall due. It also serves to reassure the directors that their company will not be allowed to slip into fraudulent or wrongful trading.
My right hon. Friend has therefore been granted powers under schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989 to provide Nuclear Electric with financial assistance, once he has obtained Treasury approval, in respect of qualifying expenditure. This qualifying expenditure is defined in schedule 12, but I should say that, in general terms, it


refers to the costs of reprocessing spent fuel and decommissioning. Schedule 12 limits the assistance that may be given to an aggregate of £1 billion.
If, in the fullness of time, it should prove necessary to increase this amount of support, schedule 12 explicitly permits the Secretary of State to seek Parliament's approval to do so, to an upper limit of £2·5 billion. Expenditure under schedule 12 must be voted through the normal Supply Estimates procedure. Hon. Members will be well aware of this provision, as schedule 12 was fully debated in the House during the passage of the Electricity Act 1989.
More recently, my right hon. Friend made clear, in a departmental minute that he laid before the House on 6 March this year, that it was his intention to provide Nuclear Electric with a letter of assurance. The letter simply notifies the House of the Government's intention to assure the directors that a grant would be available to the company under schedule 12 to the Electricity Act to enable it to meet its obligations.
I should take this opportunity to allay some of the misconceptions that some hon. Members clearly hold on this issue. The Government's obligation under schedule 12 will not involve a cash payment in the foreseeable future. It is an assurance, not a grant, and it will result in a cash payment only if the point is reached where Nuclear Electric cannot fund its own liabilities.
As I pointed out earlier in the debate, the Government will employ the necessary controls to ensure that Nuclear Electric operates on a commercial and competitive basis. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has told the House that the company will remain cash positive. Moreover, hon. Members should not confuse schedule 12 with the fossil fuel levy. The fossil fuel levy is an entirely separate matter on which regulations have been laid. It is important to remember that any money that may eventually need to be spent under schedule 12 will be provided by the Government, not by the consumer, and will not increase prices.
We have, of course, obtained the necessary approval of the European Commission for the progress we have made so far. Should any longer-term support prove to be necessary, it will, of course, be subject to any appropriate further approval from the European Commission. No assistance will be granted unless such approval is forthcoming.
I welcome the opportunity that the debate has afforded to clarify some issues relating to nuclear power and to the Government's commitment to nuclear power and nuclear energy, and some misunderstandings that have arisen in recent days. I hope that this has been a useful debate.

Orders of the Day — Community Charge Capping

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity to seek considerable clarification from the Minister on the proposals for community charge capping, or, as it will popularly be known, poll tax capping.
On Second Reading of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, which introduced the poll tax in Scotland, the Government spelled out the long-standing benefits that they felt would come from the community charge. The then Under-Secretary of State said:
The Bill is no short-term stop gap. It is no hurried or temporary expedient. It is a well considered and well worked out reform which sets up a new and viable system for financing local government for generations to come."—[Official Report, 9 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 275.]
It is now clear that, within three years of introducing the tax in Scotland, and within two years of introducing it in England, the Government will no longer be in office and the tax will be swept away and consigned to the dustbin of history.
We are puzzled about why any sort of capping should now be necessary. The benefit of the system was to be the accountability which the tax would bring to local authorities and local councillors. On Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill, which introduced the tax in England and Wales, the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
The objectives of the Bill are, first, to abolish the inequities of the present domestic rating system; secondly, to make local councils more responsive and accountable to their electors".—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1115.]
But the poll tax does not make local councils more accountable or responsive to their electors. If that is necessary, local people know that they can vote out their local councillors at elections, and that that is the democratic way of doing it, not by the underhand method that the Government have pioneered and have for 10 years imposed on local government—juggling with support figures to make sure that some councils appear to be overspenders because they had high rates and will now have high poll taxes, when the truth is that they are due much more to the diminished levels of support as the Government have welshed on their responsibility for funding local councils, and less to do with overspending. That is why so many Conservative authorities now are likely to be threatened with poll tax capping.
The Bill was originally commended in 1986 as one which would help to get rid of the unfair burdens of the old rating system. The Secretary of State for Scotland said:
The pattern of gainers and losers which the analysis shows gives the lie to Opposition claims that it is a measure which is simply aimed at helping the rich at the expense of the poor."—[Official Report, 9 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 209.]
He made no apology for the fact that the Bill did not contain details of the rebates scheme. Before the rebate scheme has even been introduced in England and Wales, it has been thoroughly discredited. This week and last the Government have had to act fast to make the rebate scheme slightly more generous—certainly more generous than it was during its first year of operation in Scotland. The Government know that the poll tax is deeply unpopular in Scotland and that the rebate scheme has brought benefits to few people there.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) rightly asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how the poll tax could be fair when someone living in a house worth £1 million pays exactly the same as someone living in a hovel, with rain pouring down the walls. He failed to get a satisfactory explanation. When I asked the Secretary of State, during the debate on Second Reading, if it was unfair that rural councils such as Orkney should have to pay a high proportion of the community charge because of the phoney nature of the rebate scheme, the Secretary of State said that I would not expect him "to know the details."
That is one of the tragedies and the flaws of the Government's case for the poll tax. They have not concentrated on the details. They have not considered how it will affect individual poll tax payers and they have not bothered themselves about the deep concern, the aggravation and the problems that they have forced upon many people—particularly senior citizens and the disabled—with a flat rate tax, for which it is difficult to claim rebates, and which has caused a great deal of suffering to many people.
After standing firm against those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, the Government were forced to concede that it was possible to give a rebate to sufferers. That was after they had made statements saying that there was no proper medical test for Alzheimer's disease and after the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that the symptoms of the disease appeared to increase and decrease in severity and therefore could not be properly measured. The concession was wrung out of the Government, but many more concessions are needed if widows, people on low incomes, the sick, the disabled and senior citizens are to get any sort of fair deal under the tax.
All the expert opinion given to the Government about the poll tax spelled out that it was unworkable. Churches, charities, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses all warned the Government that the tax would not be workable.
The Economist labelled it the "bad" tax. The Confederation of British Industry stated that it could not support the proposals because of the social and political problems of the community charge. Little did its members think that the political problems would result in the Government losing a seat which had a massive Tory majority, that Conservative party members would resign from the party and that Conservative councillors would be packing up in disgust.
My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, spelled out all those things, but he was ignored. It is interesting to look over recent records of what hon. Members have said and how they have voted on the issue.
When the poll tax was first debated on 1 December 1986 during the Second Reading debate on the Scottish aspects of the tax, there were no fewer than six Conservative contributers—the then hon. Members for Oxford East, for Edinburgh, Central, for Edinburgh, South, for Fife, North-East, for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and for Aberdeen, South—who subsequently lost their seats. There is no doubt that they did not have the confidence of the electorate when they explained that this tax was one of the key parts of their election manifestos.
Other hon. Members who did not contribute to the debate, but who voted for the tax on Second Reading, and raised not one voice of dissent were the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), and the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), all of whom are now so vociferous in spelling out the problems of the tax to the Government. Sadly, they voted to foist it first on Scotland and now on the people of England and Wales. At least two hon. Members had the good sense, decency and consistency to absent themselves from that Second Reading debate—the hon. Member for Selly Oak and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour).
When we consider how poll tax capping will affect local authorities—and, more important, those who have to pay it—we move into a legislative minefield. We know that local authorities are already expected to handle both poll tax rebates and the transitional relief measures that the Government were forced to bring in at the last minute; we also know that rebate—according to the Government—is supposed to be calculated on the basis of the "relieved" bill. But, as the Government have not given local authorities time to organise the relief by 1 April—next week—poll tax payers will receive, and are currently receiving, a bill that has been rebated on the basis of the "unrelieved" figures.
That means that, when the relief is worked out, the rebate will have been overpaid. Local authorities have been advised by the Government to recover the overpayment by reducing the future relief: goodness only knows how the poll tax payer is expected to understand that. However, if the relief reduces the rebate to below 50p a week for any given claim, no rebate will be payable. The claimant could therefore lose more in rebate than the amount of the relief that he or she would otherwise receive.
To prevent that, the Government have advised local authorities to work out whether the problem would arise in each and every case, and, if it would, not to award the relief. The local authority associations have informed the Government that the calculations will create major computer programming problems, especially as they are being introduced at the last minute.
As we bring in any form of poll tax capping emanating from the House, the confusion will become even greater. Poll tax capping means that the relief and the rebates, and the relationship between them, will be automatically wrong in capped councils and will have to be recalculated. We have three different factors with which to juggle. We know only two of the estimates at present, which is why it is important for the Minister to spell out the implications of poll tax capping and to give us an idea of the criteria that he will apply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, yesterday expressed his fear that the criteria would be based on only one factor—whether the political complexion of a council began with L or T. Perhaps I can assist the Minister's reply by asking him about a number of Conservative authorities that seem to have embarrassingly high poll tax figures.
In Derby city council, for instance, the figure is £458, against a Government target of £315. In Dartford, Kent, the poll tax figure of £324 is 40 per cent. above the Government's estimate. Its Conservative leader, Malcolm


Nothard, has said that he deeply resents his council being considered inefficient, and has been highly critical of the tax. He said:
our legislators"—
referring to the Minister and his colleagues—
were unaware of the true consequences of much of what they were doing.
They continue to be unaware of the consequences of what they are doing.
The figures for Tory Essex are above the Government's guidelines. Tory-controlled Blackpool in Lancashire has announced a poll tax figure of over £350, compared with a target of £261. It is hardly surprising that, throughout the country, with Conservative councils overshooting Government guidelines by a considerable factor, Labour is winning by-election victories. In Braintree in Essex, Labour overturned a Conservative majority with a swing of 11 per cent. There was a 19 per cent. swing to Labour on Portsmouth city council. Again Labour took a seat from the Conservatives.
Conservative councillors throughout the country are criticising the Government for having introduced an unworkable poll tax. Labour candidates are winning elections and becoming Labour councillors. Conservative councillors are quitting in disgust. The leader of Lancaster city council, Geoff Hannah, resigned and six Conservative councillors resigned their chairmanships of other councils, In other councils, such as Beverley, Conservative councillors have quit, again in disgust, and resigned the Tory whip. One of the Beverly councillors explained that this was
as a direct result of the unfairness of the Government's implementation of the poll tax.
Councillor Stephen Parnaby, the chairman of the finance committee, spelled out more clearly and convincingly than we can, because he is a Conservative, the feeling about the modern Conservative party. He said that Conservatives
feel unable at the present time to be aligned with a government which constantly refuses to listen".
That is at the heart of the debate.
For a number of years, from the day that the poll tax was first suggested, the Government have refused to listen to critics on all sides. Even worse, the fears that were spelt out, not just by the Labour party but by the CBI and other groups that are normally friendly towards the Government, have proved to be true. Their predictions have come true. The Government have no one else to blame for the chaos that has ensued. As Mr. Parnaby, the Conservative councillor, said:
The poll tax has got nothing to do at all with Labour councils.
The unpopularity of the poll tax is due to the fact that the Government want to cut their local authority expenditure commitment. They seek to shift the blame for the cuts on to local councils. It is about time that the Minister stood up, took full responsibility for cutting the Government's contribution to local authority expenditure and acknowledged that that has led to declining standards, whether it be in street cleaning, schools or other local authority services, and that where services have been improved it is due to councils standing up for their local communities and ensuring that, by hook or by crook, proper revenues are raised.
If we look at the type of people who are standing up to be counted with the Labour party on the poll tax, we get a clear idea of just how beleaguered the Government are on this issue. Take Mr. Arthur Lester, who joined his local Conservative club in Morecambe 37 years ago. He spoke for club members when he said:
There is a strong feeling among a majority that the present charge is unjust and immoral and can't be justified".
He continued:
We are very concerned with the financial burden that is going to be placed on many people who cannot get a rebate.
Those concerns are being voiced not on the basis of misinformation allegedly supplied by the Labour party and others, but because in Scotland people have not received rebates in the last year and because even with the rebates announced last week, few people will benefit.
Mr. and Mrs. Lester, who are disabled, have a state pension. He has a small occupational pension. In many ways he typifies the person who commands respect, who prudently set aside some money for an occupational pension but who is being heavily penalised because of the new poll tax system. The Lesters spent £275 on rates last year. This year they will have to pay a combined community charge of £771. The increase will swallow up the bulk of Mr. Lester's occupational pension and part of his disability benefit. He feels that he has not received a sympathetic hearing from the Government. He said:
When ordinary decent people are referring to the Prime Minister as a dictator, there is something wrong.
Remember, he is a member of a Conservative club. He said he was taking up the matter with his local MP, and added:
I suppose we will only get excuses. There is nothing he can change.
That has proved to be right. Little wonder that Mr. Lester is so disaffected with the party with which he has had links for over a quarter of a century.
The former Conservative mayor of Brighton, Bob Cristofoli, announced earlier this month that he was resigning from the Conservative group. He has for long been opposed to the poll tax and feels that he cannot be associated with the Government, who are increasingly out of touch with the people, including their own supporters. That is why people walked out of their homes as Conservative voters in Mid-Staffordshire last week and into the polling stations to vote Labour for the first time. If the poll tax remains in place until the next general election, people in increasing numbers will vote Labour.
The pressure on the Government on this issue has never been greater. There is disarray among Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers seem to be torn between blaming profligate councils, many of them Tory-controlled, the Secretary of State and, unfairly, his Department, for miscalculations. The problems caused by high poll tax levels were inevitable as the Government sought to relieve the rich from the burden of paying their way. There were property taxes in Britain during nine previous poll taxes, the last one ignominiously consigned to the dustbin over 300 years ago.
A survey of local councils carried out on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy showed most councils coming in at well above the Government's original estimates. Of 370 councils surveyed, the average target charge was exceeded by 34 per cent. in most cases. The average Conservative council was paying 81 per cent. above the Government's predictions.
We want the Minister to recognise today that those are the very councils which are likely to suffer from any poll


tax-capping measure. We need the Minister's assurance that poll tax capping—which I do not support—will be applied fairly. The Minister should explain the criteria for poll tax capping and also tell us the type of councils—I have given him a few Conservative councils from which to choose—that will be capped when legislation is introduced next week.
The reason why the Minister is having to introduce poll tax capping gives the lie to the crucial argument behind the poll tax, which was that it would make councils more accountable to their electorate. If the electorate will automatically know that where councils levy a charge, it will be placed on them as individuals, and if they will be careful—as they have been anyway—about how they exercise their vote because they will, as the Government argue, for the first time have to pay directly any higher costs for improvements, services or any mis-spending by local councils, why do the Government not leave councils to suffer the consequences?
The answer to that rhetorical question is that the type of Conservatives whom I have mentioned know that the councillors are not to blame. They know that the Government are clearly to blame and that, when the Government allowed only 3·8 per cent. for inflation in grants to local authorities in the coming year, that was a bogus figure which was bound to lead to the burden being shifted from the Government on to the local poll tax payers when inflation is running at almost double that level, at 7·5 per cent.
Those Conservatives know that, when the Government calculate their figures for the contributions to local authorities on a 100 per cent. collection—which was never achieved under the rating system and will never be achieved under the poll tax system—they are deliberately trying to deceive councils and the electors. However, the electors are too clever for that.
The Government make no calculation for service improvements for which people are crying out. One has only to walk around the streets outside this building to know that the cleaning requirements are greater than ever. People are willing to pay for those service improvements, and they believe that it is only right that the Government should pay their fair share from all the taxes they collect, yet they have not been doing that.
The reason why the Government have been withdrawing their support is a mystery to many people. Ten years ago, my own authority—Edinburgh—was receiving a two thirds contribution towards local spending. For every pound spent by the local council on behalf of local residents, 66p to 67p came from central Government. That two-thirds contribution to local services has been cut drastically to about one half. The impact of that was to send rates bills, as they were, and now poll tax bills, soaring.
It beggars belief that the Government thought that they could bring in the poll tax in England and Wales at a lower level than rates, especially as there has been no revaluation in England. In Scotland, we had the twin blows of the Government withdrawing support from local councils and then we had revaluation, which shifted the budget burden from industry and from large businesses and heaped it on to small businesses and individual ratepayers. In England, people have moved from the system of rates straight to the system of poll tax, without revaluation. That is one of the key reasons why the poll tax is proving so high. The way to tackle that is not to attack councils and, through

councils, the levels of services, but to honour commitments made by previous Governments to give a fair contribution to local councils and services.
Even the distribution is now so skewed as to be ludicrous and beyond comprehension. In Edinburgh, for instance, if my constituents were to receive the same support for their local services as people in the west of Scotland, in Glasgow, do, the poll tax figure in Edinburgh would be cut by £166 to £272. The Secretary of State has offered no explanation why the figures have been rigged to ensure that Edinburgh gets so little in the way of support, or why Glasgow gets inadequate support—because even those higher figures for Glasgow are not enough for a city which has legendary problems to overcome and has suffered from the collapse of the industrial revolution in Scotland.
When the Minister is spelling out which councils he wishes to poll tax-cap and giving us details of the criteria that he will apply, I hope that he will also turn his mind to the complexities of administering the poll tax. In particular, I hope that he will be able to tell us how he expects local authorities to spend on reprogramming computers and interviewing all the individuals who will be eligible for a different set of rebates when the poll tax-capping figure comes in and is imposed on councils.
I hope also that the Minister will take note of the fact that, in Scotland, the cost of implementing the poll tax—the real cost, not the hypothecated cost that we are getting in England—has been two and a half times the cost of collecting the rates. Millions, hundreds of millions, thousands of millions, of changes in the records have been required as people have moved house and disappeared or come on to electoral and poll tax registers.
In the Lothian region, it is costing some £20 per poll tax payer to collect the poll tax.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the countryside, it can be more.

Mr. Griffiths: As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) rightly says, more than that, because an extra £10 is being charged to individuals for the capital cost of implementing the poll tax.

Mr. Dalyell: There are particular problems in the rural areas. My hon. Friend represents a city; I represent some of the rural areas, and they are a special problem.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is, as usual, vigilant about the problems that his own constituents face in a rural area. I certainly recognise those problems, and they are recognised by Lothian regional council and by councils and councillors throughout the country.
It is impossible to achieve the 100 per cent. collection figure, not least because people are coming on to and leaving the register. The Government have created an army of bureaucrats to administer this unworkable tax. They have substantially increased the amount that each person has to pay. In my constituency—indeed, in every constituency—people would rather see the £20 that has been heaped on their poll tax for administrative charges go direct to services or to reducing their charge. The last place they want to see it going is on the added bureaucracy that the Government have imposed on local councils.
That added bureaucracy has been justified by Ministers as allowing a direct relationship to be forged between each individual poll tax payer as an elector and the councillors


and the decisions that they are taking. We know that this debate and the announcement that legislation is to be brought in next week, give the lie to the accountability argument. The Government are not prepared to sit back and allow councils to face the consequences at the polls. The reason is clear. It is not because councils are overspending but because the Government are underfunding local services.
The Minister should spell out the criteria. It is only fair that councils should be given some warning five, six or seven days before the tax comes in. While we expect him to do that in the interests of fairness, we do not think that he is likely to do so if the Government's track record is anything to go by. Everyone should know the criteria that are being applied. The same criteria should be applied to all councils, whether they are Labour, Conservative or of another complexion. However, the Government's record on rate capping shows that they are unlikely to be applied fairly.
The people, having seen through the Government and their bogus tax, will see through any sleights of hand or attempts to rig the system to pass the buck to local councils. It is time for a Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "I accept full responsibility for this unpopular tax. I defend this tax unequivocally. We do not intend to repeal it." We have yet to hear anyone with a shred of sense saying that. I await the Minister's response.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: From the many hours that we have spent together in Committee on the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, the Minister will know that I do not spin lines either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I hope that I have always said what I meant.
It is against that background that I seek to address questions being asked by Conservative Members. Is the poll tax situation just a matter of teething troubles? Are there not difficulties in introducing any new tax? Will it not settle down soon, as our parliamentary and governmental leaders tell us? Those are the questions that are being asked repeatedly.
In the 27 years in which I have had the privilege of being in the House of Commons, I have never endured such continuing, sustained constituency misery as that caused by the poll tax. I fear that it will not get better for a number of reasons, only one of which I give. There is a geological flaw in the tax, in that people are mobile. The tax will never be any easier to administer. The figures ably deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) are only too true. As he said, there are 70,000 people in our region who have not yet paid. It is not a question of their not being willing to pay—in the overwhelming majority of cases at my surgeries, people genuinely cannot pay.
There is mounting resentment. The whole question of poinding is incredibly unpleasant. What does one say to people who not only have sheriff officers coming to their door but the fear of that action? That fear can cause physical illness. I am not spinning a yarn. That is what is happening in the second year of the tax. Many Conservative Members are friends of mine and I advise them that they had better understand—I say this to them

publicly and privately—that year two is more miserable than year one, with an endless number of difficulties which will go on and on.
At my surgery at Winchburgh only last weekend I encountered two cases of widows whose husbands had died more than 12 months previously but had poll tax demands addressed to them. It is no good Ministers saying that the local authority is incompetent or that the officials have been careless. The truth is that they are going demented trying to operate this thing. It is difficult not to make such insensitive mistakes. For pity's sake, let the Government of this country have a second thought about the poll tax.
I owe the House an explanation. As can be seen from the Order Paper, I was lucky enough to get the ninth Consolidated Fund debate—on the circumstances of the acquisition by William Cook plc of the Atlas Steel Works at Armadale. As usual on Consolidated Fund debates, I telephoned the Minister to explain exactly what I wanted to ask. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) listened courteously and said that he had a problem. He was due on a train at 8.10 am for important ministerial engagements in the city of Liverpool and it looked as though my debate would begin at 8 am or thereabouts. I do not think that it serves any purpose if Ministers of whatever party have to cancel, at the shortest notice, long-set-up ministerial engagements for which many other people have gone to a great deal of trouble.
In those circumstances, I willingly accepted the Minister's suggestion that he write to me, and indeed he has sent me a most helpful letter. He says:
You and the industrial companies concerned are doing exactly the right thing in making representations to the Director General, who is currently carrying out a preliminary study of the case.
I promise you that we wish to see the advice in this office as soon as possible for the Secretary of State to make his decision. I am told by the Director General's office that they will use their best endeavours to bring this to a Mergers Panel within two weeks following our discussion. I hope that all of the necessary information from those wishing to make representations will be available to him in good time, so that he can meet that timetable. He would then aim to get the advice for the Secretary of State as quickly as possible following that Mergers Panel meeting.
Meanwhile you might like to know that the Chairman of William Cook plc has given the OFT a verbal assurance that they will take no precipitate action to dismantle the foundry. This assurance is still to be put in writing.
I hope that this is satisfactory to you. You will appreciate that I cannot comment on the merits of the case as the Secretary of State does need first to seek advice from the Director General.
Thank you for agreeing that this letter can be in place of replying to a Consolidated Fund debate.
The hon. Member for Wokingham has honourably done exactly what he said he would do, and I thank him for it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): In one sense, there is a short answer to this debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment are currently considering information about local authority budgets and when that consideration is complete, announcements will be made about whether there will be capping in the coming year. Those announcements would also cover any criteria that would be applied. I cannot go further than that.
We have been treated to a speech lasting over half an hour from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths)—

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How long has the Department had the data from the local authorities?

Mr. Chope: Data are still coming in from the local authorities. I believe that all local authorities have now set their budgets but that budget information has to be delivered to my Department and to other regional Departments and then considered. That is what is happening at present.
We had a speech of over half an hour from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. I thought that we would be treated to a resumé of all the merits of the roof tax. I know that the Labour party in Scotland is leading the field on developing the roof tax proposal and I am aware of the Labour party's enthusiasm for it nationally. I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would compare a capping scheme for the roof tax with a capping scheme for the community charge. He avoided talking about the roof tax or any alternative to the community charge. He referred only in passing to the problems caused by a revaluation under the rating system.
When I was in Scotland recently, the feeling came through strongly that the rating system was unjust. That injustice was made manifest by the revaluation. Many people in Scotland felt that if there had been a domestic revaluation in England, the manifest injustice of the domestic rating system in England would have become even more apparent, as the effects of revaluation came home to people. The hon. Gentleman seems to agree with those points; I shall give way to him.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister accept that the injustice that he has omitted is the injustice of the Government's abolition of the Labour scheme that gave a 100 per cent. rebate to widows, the disabled, the elderly and those on the lowest incomes? Does he agree that it was a terrible injustice to abolish that 100 per cent. rebate?

Mr. Chope: I believe that it is reasonable that every adult makes some contribution towards the costs of local government services. If a person is on income support, the level of support reflects the fact that a contribution has to be made towards the cost of local government services. It is reasonable that someone on income support who lives, for example, in the London borough of Lambeth, will end up paying 20 per cent. of the charge in Lambeth. If the person lives in Wandsworth he will pay 20 per cent. of the charge in Wandsworth. The amount that he has to pay will be 20 per cent. of £148 in Wandsworth and 20 per cent. of about £600 in Lambeth. That brings home even to someone on income support the way in which the council conducts its affairs. That is an important element of accountability.
Many people living in Lambeth, whether on income support or not, will realise during the forthcoming local election campaign exactly the extent to which they are victims of the extravagance of their council. People will vote for lower community charges. Even if people have to pay only 20 per cent. of the charge, they could make a real saving. That is why they will vote for Conservative candidates.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it true, as some of us read, that Wandsworth is receiving favoured son financial treatment from the Government? Are we to believe it, or is it wrong?

Mr. Chope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that. If we make the comparison between Lambeth and Wandsworth, we see that external support per adult in Lambeth is £324 more than in Wandsworth. Notwithstanding that amazing extra generosity of the taxpayer in Government support to Lambeth community charge payers, Lambeth borough council proposes to set a community charge which is roughly £450 more than that in Wandsworth. If it does, Lambeth will be spending some £775 more per adult than Wandsworth. Most of that additional expenditure is simply wasted. I speak with some feeling on that, because my address in London happens to be in the London borough of Lambeth. I see the poor quality of the services and the inefficiency with which they are delivered. To suggest that the difference between the two boroughs can be put down to the grant going into them is a red herring.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South may be surprised and amazed at the figures I have given, but he must realise the extent to which Labour councils have a propensity to waste community charge payers' and ratepayers' money. Under the new system a ready reckoner is provided so that one can compare the position in one borough with that in another. That is why it is so helpful, as it introduces accountability and ensures that, overall, pressure is brought to bear to achieve better value for money in local government services.
A political environment is all about choice—the choice between a Conservative council and a Labour one, and the choice between a roof tax or a community charge. I understand that there is serious consternation in Scotland about what a roof tax will involve, whether or not a capping scheme is attached to it. I am told that in Scotland a roof tax could cost £1,000 plus per adult. The more exemptions and reliefs associated with that tax, the higher it will have to be for everyone else.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) recently confirmed that the Labour party believes that the same amount of money should be raised locally from ordinary citizens as is currently raised by the community charge or the domestic rating system. The Labour party has not said that the local contribution should be smaller, but that it should be distributed on a less fair basis, which would penalise those who wanted to improve their homes.

Mr. Griffiths: The only consternation felt in Scotland is among the staff of Conservative central office, who are worried whether the Conservatives can hold a single parliamentary seat at the next election.

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I was in Scotland a couple of weeks ago and I happened to be in Alloway. Within the past three weeks, at a local government by-election in that area, the Labour majority of more than 400 was reduced to one of just over 100. That shows the way in which the people of Scotland are increasingly disillusioned with the Labour party, particularly its alternative to the community charge.
I must pay credit to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland for coming clean with an alternative proposal so that the Scottish people can judge the community charge against the roof tax. I have seen some of the posters in


Scotland that show a picture of a house with vultures sitting on top of its roof. Those vultures represent the Socialists, the Labour party, and that campaign is having a major impact in Scotland.
I am sure that, when the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) becomes a little less coy about the Labour party proposals for England, we shall witness growing consternation about the threat of a Labour Government introducing a roof tax, which would be extremely unfair. As with all its proposals, the more the Labour party alternative to the community charge comes under scrutiny, the more it wriggles about and suggests that everyone would be better off under the roof tax. In reality, most people would be a lot worse off.
The roof tax would be extremely unfair and bear heavily upon widows, widowers, single householders and people who live in areas where the capital values of property go up because of market demand.
The roof tax would also bear heavily on the sort of people I met yesterday when I visited Stoke-on-Trent and a local improvement area in which the value of properties had gone up substantially as a result of improvement grants and the efforts of the council, housing associations and the private sector to improve the quality of the properties. I said yesterday—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), who was present, did not deny it—that under the roof tax people who benefit from improvements to their properties will be expected, by reason of that benefit, to contribute significantly more towards the cost of local government services. Opposition Members may think that that is fair. I do not, and nor do most of the British people.

Mr. Dalyell: Ornithologically, the vulture is a bird of warning. May this particular vulture give the Minister a word of warning? In disputed cases in Scotland we find that there is argument about where a person was at a particular time. That has to be established, and people are then asked where they were on a particular night. That question easily becomes interpreted as the question, "With whom were you?" Such a situation shows that it is difficult to tax mobility. At least property is static. The general idea of the roof tax, which is actually the rates wrapped up under a new name, is basically as good as one will get.

Mr. Chope: That is an interesting observation, but the roof tax goes further than the old rating system because the document produced by the Scottish Labour party states that it not only taxes on the property value, but takes into account the income of those living in it.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: indicated assent.

Mr. Chope: I see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South confirms that that is so. If it takes into account the income of those living in the property, it has to identify them and be able to work out their means. That means that the roof tax proposal is even more complicated than the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seems to be prepared to accept, and certainly much more complicated than the community charge, which does not require another property valuation every time there is a change in the market, an improvement is carried out to somebody's home or facilities are added on for the disabled.

Mr. Griffiths: Under the Labour proposal, it is not intended that every time an improvement is made in the home another valuation should be made. That makes it completely different from the poll tax, under which every change of circumstance and every move that people make, no matter how temporary, affects their assessment. Under the Labour scheme, with 100 per cent. rebates, the very widow to whom the Minister and Prime Minister enjoy referring will gain. The poor widow will get a 100 per cent. rebate. At present, the Minister makes such widows pay tens of hundreds of pounds.

Mr. Chope: Under the existing domestic rating system in England, widows and widowers pay many hundreds of pounds, often thousands of pounds. Single pensioners will be the main beneficiaries from the abolition of the domestic rating system in England.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that, in Scotland, vast numbers of people, regardless of their means and merely because they are widows—even if they are millionairess widows—will be entitled to a 100 per cent. rebate.

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Chope: Oh, so not all widows and widowers will be exempt? Gradually, we are getting the information about this scheme. How many people will be exempt from the roof tax in Scotland or England, and what would be the extent of those exemptions? It is clear that the overall impact would be average bills of about £1,000 per adult, if not more. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare; most people in Scotland can see that, which is why they are increasingly rejecting the idea. When it is developed further in England, people here will also wish to reject it.
Politics is all about alternatives. It is easy to criticise a system, particularly a taxation system. Most people agree with Conservative Members, and say that they feel in their bones that most of our town halls could spend much less money, and be substantially more efficient. We need a system that will bring pressure to bear to ensure that those efficiency savings are made.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South referred in passing to some selected examples of increases in spending in England. I shall take him to task on one or two of them to show that he is entirely out of touch with reality. He criticised Derby, which is Conservative-controlled and has a well-run council. He said that there would be a substantial community charge in Derby. That is right, but whereas Conservative-controlled Derby city council has a budget below its standard spending assessment—in other words, it is providing services with greater than average efficiency—Derby county council is spending at 25 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. That spending amounts to £157 per adult on top of what would have to be paid if the council spent in line with its standard spending assessment.
The hon. Gentleman has scored an own goal. Whereas Derby city council, under Conservative control, has shown that it is well able to live within the standard spending assessment and provide good quality services, Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council has shown that it is extravagant and has no regard to the means of the people living in its area to meet high community charge bills. There are those who say that Derbyshire county council should be capped to provide some protection to the hard-pressed community charge payers in that area.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What about Beverley?

Mr. Chope: The situation in Beverley is not dissimilar from that in Derby. Humberside county council is Labour-controlled, and it increased its spending dramatically. Some of the Beverley councillors fear that it will not come across clearly to the people that the increase in spending and the high community charges are associated with the high-spending Labour policies of the county council. When the bills come through, however, that should become apparent. The hon. Gentleman would wish that not to be so, but the reason will become increasingly apparent.
Perhaps it would help the House if I said a little about the relative spending levels of different counties and districts that are under different political control. Labour-controlled counties are planning precepts that are £82 a head more than their standard spending assessments, whereas Conservative-controlled counties are planning precepts that are only £25 more than theirs. On average, Labour-controlled counties are overspending by three times as much as Conservative ones.
Labour-controlled shire districts are planning precepts of £45 per head more than their standard spending assessments, whereas Conservative districts are planning spending only £7 a head more than their assessments.
The starkest contrast is to be found in the London boroughs. Many regard the London Labour-controlled boroughs as the heartland of the Labour party. Much Labour party policy is developed in these areas, including high spending by local authorities. These boroughs dominate the Labour party. In London, the Labour-controlled boroughs are spending £223 a head above their standard spending assessments, whereas Conservative boroughs are spending only £3 a head above theirs. In other words, £220 per adult more than the standard spending assessments is being spent in Labour-controlled boroughs compared with the small excess of Conservative-controlled boroughs. That is a strong message that is going

out to the people of London. It will bring home to them and to others nationally the extent of Labour extravagance and overspending.

Mr. Andy Stewart: My hon. Friend was talking about Derbyshire and Humberside. He might like to know that Nottinghamshire is in the same position as those counties. It is overspending and overcharging the Nottinghamshire people by £80. The Conservative opposition drew up a budget that would have been almost on target and would have saved charge payers £80 each. My hon. Friend might also like to know that, last year, Nottinghamshire could not even balance its education budget. It was overspent by £2·5 million. Worse still, the authority could not account for £750,000. Those are the sort of people who are running Nottinghamshire.

Mr. Chope: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I sympathise with his constituents who have to live under that council.
The essence of the new system is that it will bring increased accountability so that people can choose between the better councils and the worse councils. Almost without exception, Conservatives in opposition are proposing substantial reductions in the community charge when they are elected to office.
Let me conclude by referring to the position in the Labour-controlled metropolitan districts, which are spending £93 a head over their standard spending assessments, whereas Conservative-controlled metropolitan districts are spending only £20 over the SSAs. We see a pattern across the country of Labour spendthrift policies and Labour overspending. That is why the Labour party despises the community charge. The community charge puts a premium on accountability and the Labour party does not like accountability. It does not like local people to realise where the blame for high spending and high bills lies—almost without exception in Labour town halls.

Orders of the Day — Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am delighted to have been called, as I was uncertain that my debate would be reached. When I checked on the progress of the debate last night, I was told that it had only a small chance of being reached by 9 am, when the debate ends, so I was surprised to find that I was to be called earlier. I had imagined that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) would not be up quite so early, as I know that the Scots oppose the early introduction of double summer time. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would at least ensure that his hon. Friends allowed him to stay in bed a little longer. I had some difficulty in getting my application for the ballot in by 9 o'clock on Monday, and I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) who got my name into the office in time.
I have chosen this subject because I believe that most of the public are ignorant of the fact that more than £1 million was given to the Opposition parties to enable them to conduct their opposition. The history of that goes back a little. The Library has given me a note of the development of the various Acts which have brought the present system about. They go back to 1937, when the Leader of the Opposition was first granted a salary to help him in his job. In 1975, we had the granting of Short money, followed by the Houghton committee report in 1976 and a Hansard Society commission report in 1981, both of which came down in favour of helping active political parties as an essential part of a healthy democracy. I think that we would all agree with that, in the light of developments in eastern Europe.
The money is paid on condition that it is used exclusively in relation to parliamentary business. I wish to clarify whether the money is being used for that purpose, in view of some of the failures of the Opposition parties to conduct themselves in a proper democratic fashion. In 1975, when the Short moneys were introduced, we had a responsible Opposition, who I am sure would not have condoned some of the practices that we have now. We have a list of Labour Members who signed a declaration, published on 19 January, that they would refuse to pay the community charge. As it is taxpayers' money that is funding the Short moneys, I question whether it is right for the Labour party to continue to include among its whipped Members those who refuse to pay a legitimately raised tax. Why should people pay tax for others who refuse to pay it although they are clearly able to do so? It is for purely political purposes that they refuse to pay—purposes which go beyond the political process.
The declaration that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) issued on 19 January 1990 says:
Labour MPs are linking up with the only force which can defeat the legislation—the mass action of millions of ordinary people involved in the Non-Payment Campaign organised into the All Britain Federation, which will become a mighty force in the coming weeks.
Is that parliamentary action or unparliamentary action by the official Opposition party—financed by the taxpayer? 
I call on you, Mr. Speaker, to find a way in which payment of these moneys—I understand that payments are made monthly—can be suspended while that party

condones such action. Why does not the official Opposition leadership condemn it and throw out the Members who signed the declaration? 
The press release issued on 19 January makes the intriguing statement that "nearly 30 Labour MPs" have given their backing to the action. I have tried to check exactly who has given this backing. On the papers that I have been given, there are 29 names. I think that 28 people signed up on 19 January but that a list published by The Daily Telegraph on 9 March contains an additional name.
To clarify the situation, I should like to put the names on the record. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East included the names of the following Members: the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields); the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), against whom there are currently legal proceedings, which in themselves, I should have thought, were grounds for immediate withdrawal of the official Opposition Whip; the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not dealing with cases that are sub judice.

Mr. Thurnham: That is the only sub judice case of which I am aware. There is no such impediment in the other cases—at any rate, not at this stage.
The list includes also the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon); the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray); the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who, of all those Members, I should have thought would want to obey the parliamentary process—

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What has this to do with the financial aid given to Opposition parties? I have looked in the Library, just as the hon. Gentleman has done, but I can see no reference to any material of this sort. The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting very wide of the subject of debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just started and is outlining his case. However, he must not deal with matters that are sub judice.

Mr. Thurnham: Let me make the position absolutely clear. The note that I have received from the Library says that, if the Accounting Officer has any reasonable doubt about the validity of any claim for official money, he should refer the matter to Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this debate is to establish whether there is some ground for an investigation by the Accounting Officer into whether any of the official money being paid to the official Opposition party is in any way leading to unparliamentary activity. If there is any doubt, either the Leader of the Opposition must withdraw the Whip from the 29 Members or the Short money should be suspended. Why should taxpayers pay nearly £1 million a year to help the official Opposition to oppose in a parliamentary fashion, when that Opposition clearly condone unparliamentary activity by allowing those 29 Members to continue?
I will resume my reading of the list. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield—

Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman develop his argument a little and tell us what he thinks should be done about taxpayers' money which goes to the governing party, one of whose members has been suspended from this House?

Mr. Thurnham: We are debating Short money. The point that the hon. Gentleman has raised is absolutely irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman questioned the relevance of what I was saying, but how can the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, of all people, condone something that is totally unparliamentary? 
Then we have the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not here. However, he is one of the few people who has been consistent in the matter. If my recollection is correct, he voted against the payment of Short money when we last debated the subject two years ago.
Then we have the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall)—the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) seems to have been left behind—the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Tottenham (Mr. Grant).
Now we have the hon. Member for Bradford, South and the hon. Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). It sticks in my throat to call them honourable Members when they seek in an unparliamentary way to reverse legislation that has been passed by the House. Then there are the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay).
That is 28—not "nearly 30" as described in the press release. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) gets me to 29—the nearly 30 names which were claimed. There may be another name that I have not yet had note of.
It is most unsatisfactory that the official Opposition should continue to allow those Members to take the Labour Whip. The Labour Whips' office is the principal beneficiary of the money that is provided, so it would surely be consistent to withdraw the Whip.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said that there will be a national demonstration this weekend, so surely now is the time for the Opposition to make a decision on the matter. Certainly 29 Labour Members have put their names to the declaration and will be involved with the demonstration this weekend. The Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are clearly condoning unparliamentary activity and they must come to a decision. Either they must withdraw the Whip or ask you, Mr. Speaker, to suspend the payment of the Short money to them because they are clearly not carrying out their Opposition duties in a parliamentary fashion.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East said that that was the only force which would defeat the legislation, but it is not. The force that can defeat the legislation is a vote in Parliament, not a mass demonstration organised outside the House in an attempt to persuade people not to pay the tax, which only imposes a greater burden on other taxpayers.
Some people may feel that the Short money should not be paid anyway. Perhaps it should be an optional extra on the community charge. When people pay their community charge, they should be asked whether they want to opt in

to give the Opposition some money. Then we would know whether community charge payers wanted to encourage an Opposition who allow 29 or 30 of its members to say that they do not want to pay. We would then see exactly how much the British people want to pay towards Short money to assist the Opposition in carrying out their duties.
If the Opposition act in such an unparliamentary way, people will feel less inclined to opt into the extra payment on their community charge. I have not done the arithmetic, but payment of a few pence on the community charge would be voluntary. The Opposition would then find out how keen the British people were to pay the Short money to them, and unparliamentary activity would obviously work against them.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consult your parliamentary Accounting Officer as to whether he is entirely satisfied that none of the money being paid is encouraging those 29 Members in their activities. As Members of the official Opposition, they are benefiting from the Short money. How can we condone such a situation? 
I have a printout of newspaper articles from the Library, which quote many of the hon. Members whose names I have read out. I shall be pleased to provide this as evidence to the Accounting Officer, if he has any doubts. There is plenty of evidence here that Opposition Members are prepared to condone unparliamentary activity to reverse a parliamentary matter. It is most unsatisfactory that we should have had a great increase in the money paid at a time when the Opposition are failing to discipline their Members. The amount paid to the Labour party has doubled. According to the latest figures that I have found, in 1986 it was £440,000. in 1987 it was £436,000 and in 1988 it was £883,000, so the amount given to the Labour party to enable it to conduct its affairs in a parliamentary fashion has virtually doubled. What does the extra money do? It seems to encourage 10 per cent. of Labour Members to behave in a totally unparliamentary way.
If we cannot suspend the Short money altogether, perhaps it would be best to have a debate on whether it should be reduced to its previous level as a discipline on the Labour party, which seems quite unable to discipline its own members.
I thank you for the opportunity to raise this subject, Mr. Speaker, in a short debate at such an early hour this morning. I hope that it will encourage the Opposition Front Bench to think carefully about their position in the next few days before the weekend demonstration, and to discipline its members. If the Opposition cannot discipline their own members, I think that the House should discipline the Opposition.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: When the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) reads his speech or watches it on the video, I do not think that he will be proud of it. The phrases that kept creeping in about disciplining Opposition parties would have tripped easily off the tongue of people usually associated with more totalitarian methods of ruling. Let us be crystal clear about the matter. If the income of whichever party is in opposition—I shall return to that point in a minute, because it is of particular interest, given the opinion polls today—were to depend on the whims of the Government majority, and on an assessment by Government Members


of whether the Opposition were worthy of the money, and if the subject could be raised in debate whenever the Government felt it was appropriate, it would be a dangerous constitutional precedent.
The power of the House is awesome. It can do anything by a majority vote. If the hon. Member wanted to use the effective electoral dictatorship which the majority has it could make the Labour party illegal. However, the House can operate only if the principles are observed and if there is no suggestion of the kind of attitude and principle—or rather lack of it—that the hon. Gentleman has displayed by his suggestion that the Labour party's money should depend on a daily assessment and on the jurisdiction of the majority party in the House.
I was about to say that the hon. Gentleman will be on the Opposition benches soon, viewing a party that he does not like in power. But he will not be with us when that occurs. Therefore, he has a certain freedom of speech on the subject, knowing that he will not be held accountable, although we shall ensure that some of his hon. Friends are held accountable, as soon as the happy day arrives when Government and Opposition are reversed.
I fully understand—I suspect that it will be exercising the minds of many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues between now and the next general election—the importance of the rights of Opposition parties. That has been recognised over the years by those who have subjected these matters to serious debate. I make no apology for quoting Lord Prior—as he is now—although I have done so in the past. In July 1974, when his party was in opposition, he said:
Concerning additional cash for Opposition parties, I suppose that one of the benefits of the change in Government in recent years is that it has brought to the notice of Governments the very great difficulties from which Oppositions suffer, particularly Shadow Ministers…
But certainly, as far as this proposal goes, I believe that Front Bench spokesmen, with the additional correspondence and additional research work that is now required of them— which is far greater than it was even a few years ago—do need the sort of assistance that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned."—[Official Report, 29 July 1974; vol. 878, c. 33-4.]
Anyone who honestly reviews our work over the past 16 years will know that that work load has greatly increased since 1974, and that, given all the pressures and demands on Opposition parties which were rightly referred to then, the case has become stronger and stronger.
I might add that the money that Opposition parties have with which to deal with those pressures has not increased in anything like the same proportion as the money that we pay to keep the Prime Minister in office. The hon. Gentleman gave the Labour party's 1986 figure as £440,000 and the current figure as £883,000. I took the precaution of putting down a question about the cost of running the Prime Minister's office, which I thought might be relevant to the debate. I was told that in 1987 the cost was £5,418,455.

Mr. Greg Knight: So what?

Mr. Grocott: I shall be pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman intervene after the next figure. I know that he is tired; he has probably been here for a long while. The duty of a Whip—

Mr. Thurnham: I have been listening carefully, but, although I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman

would want to begin his speech by condemning the action of the 29 hon. Members whom I mentioned, I have not heard a word about it. After all, we have come to hear him answer the points that I made. I am surprised that he has got so far without even mentioning that.

Mr. Grocott: The strange thing is that I am speaking to a subject put down by the hon. Gentleman, not me, entitled "Financial Assistance to Opposition parties". Had he wanted to discuss the poll tax, he could have put down a motion accordingly. Obviously he got up rather late this morning, grabbed the nearest set of notes, rushed into the Library and constructed the best job he could. I understand the problem; I also understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to interrupt my comments about the cost of running the Prime Minister's office. Lest he forget, the cost in 1987 was £5,418,455; the estimate for 1989 is £7,924,979. That is a 50 per cent. increase since the general election.
Last week the people of Mid-Staffordshire were able—among other things—to judge whether they had been obtaining value for money over that period, and I think that the answer was pretty conclusive. We will not take from the Conservative party—during the months in Government that remain to it—lectures about Opposition expenditure, when Government expenditure has increased on a vastly greater scale than ours. In any case, the Conservative party has support that is well out of our reach.
The Leader of the Opposition has a smallish office. Each of his shadow Secretaries of State has one researcher. That has to be compared with a Civil Service of over 500,000, which is what the Prime Minister has at her disposal. The disparity will become all too clear to Conservative Members before too long. Anyone who is concerned about democracy should be worried about the growing gap between the resources that are available to either side. When the positions are reversed, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East will not find me, on that side of the House, arguing that the amount of money that is made available to the Opposition, however bad they may be, should be reduced.
The Government have increased massively the resources that are available to them. They have increased the amount of money that they spend on advertising their wares. There has been a sixfold increase in Government expenditure on advertising, particularly television advertising, since they came to power. In 1984, Department of Industry expenditure on television advertisements amounted to £32,000. In 1989, that amount had increased to £13 million. The Government's power has greatly increased since they took office. They use television advertisements to try to persuade the electorate of their advantages over the Opposition. The water privatisation advertisements were party political advertisements. They had nothing to do with Government administration. In the cold light of day, a few Ministers and Conservative Members must have felt some guilt over the way in which that money was spent.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the taxpayer should be able to opt in and out on the question whether the Opposition should be given any money. The taxpayers in Mid-Staffordshire clearly opted out of wanting to give any more money to the Government. I have not checked the hon. Gentleman's voting record, but I wonder whether he would argue that shareholders should have the right to


opt out when payments are made on their behalf to political parties—always, of course, to the Conservative party.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be thrilled with his speech when he reads it. It was recognised overwhelmingly by previous Parliaments that money should be made available to Opposition parties. In my view, not nearly enough money is made available to them. The disparity is growing and is becoming frightening. I have given the figures relating to the cost of running the Prime Minister's office.
With their parliamentary majority, the Government can take that money away from Opposition parties. If a kangaroo court consisting of Conservative Back Benchers ever said, "We do not like the way that that Member of Parliament is behaving; take away the Opposition's money," or, "We do not like the way that that shadow Minister is behaving; take away the Opposition's money," it would be a sad day for democracy. In fact, it would be a near-terminal day for democracy. This is an unnecessary and not very good subject for debate. I hope that no one will take it too seriously.

The Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): In contrast to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I have no hesitation in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on scoring a bullseye in this short debate. He gave the Opposition an opportunity to comment on the actions of Labour Members, and the hon. Member for The Wrekin, their spokesman, declined to comment. Perhaps he does not have sufficient discretion or flexibility to do so.
I would have hoped that all Members of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition would have no hesitation in saying that they believe in loyalty to the sovereign and the rule of law. The rule of law is fundamental to a democratic society, but a number of Labour Members seem to saying that they wish to reject the rule of law—

Mr. Don Dixon: Get on with it.

Mr. Chope: I get the impression that the Opposition Whip wishes to interrupt, albeit from a sedentary position. Perhaps he would like to take this opportunity to condemn

his hon. Friends who are going round the country encouraging people not to pay the community charge, thereby imposing a higher burden on those who will pay, and at the same time saying that they themselves will not pay. What an appalling example to set.

Mr. Dixon: Really!

Mr. Chope: Clearly, the Opposition Whip must be as concerned about that as are others. The hon. Gentleman cannot take the medicine. Only when Opposition Members show themselves to be worthy upholders of the rule of law will they be taken seriously in the country. They have an opportunity now, at 7.25 am, to say unequivocally that all those Labour Members who say that they will not pay the community charge are wrong. I hope that not only words but actions will follow and that the Leader of the Opposition will say that, if they continue to encourage people not to pay the community charge and not to uphold the rule of law, they will be expelled from the Labour party.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister be clear on one point, for his remarks are obviously more serious when uttered from the Dispatch Box than when said from the Back Benches? Is he saying, as a Member of the Government, that the Opposition's money should be dependent on his assessment—the Government's assessment—of how well they are doing their work?

Mr. Chope: I am not saying that. The Opposition's money is not their money but the taxpayers' money, and I should have thought that they were entitled to know whether the money that is going in their name to the Opposition is going to a responsible or irresponsible Opposition. That is the point that my hon. Friend raised in this debate.
It will be noted that in his intervention, the hon. Member for The Wrekin resolutely declined to criticise in any way the action of almost one seventh of parliamentary Labour party members, who have said that they are not prepared to pay the community charge, who are encouraging others not to pay it and who, in other words, are not prepared to uphold the rule of law. They are picking and choosing which laws they wish to obey. To do that is not democracy but anarchy.

Orders of the Day — Forensic Entomology

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful for the opportunity to put before the House a subject which I believe has not been debated in the House before but which will become increasingly important in the future of forensic science. It is the subject of forensic entomology, and I wish in particular to highlight the case of Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu, a forensic entomologist, and the funding of his research.
I begin with a riddle to which I will give the answer shortly. When is a corpse not just a corpse? 
During the night, when I was huddled in an armchair in a distant corner of the Palace of Westminster, I had a dream—this is the truth—about you, Mr. Speaker. In the course of this dream, which I had at about 4 am, I dreamed that there was one of those noisy scenes which have made you, something of a star of the small screen since television reached this House. During that noisy scene—it was no doubt an anxiety dream, as I was the target of some of your irritation, if I can be forgiven for using that word—a forensic scientist suddenly came to your rescue with a magical spray which enabled you to quell the wrath of hon. Members with each other, and to bring the proceedings to order in an instant.
The forensic scientist in that dream was not Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu, who is the subject of this debate, but another forensic scientist, Professor Alec Jeffreys of Leicester university. He is a forensic scientist who has come to fame in recent years because of his discovery of DNA fingerprinting or DNA profiling, as it is also known.
I had the privilege in a prosecution that I conducted at Mold Crown court in north Wales of calling Professor Jeffreys as an expert witness and of seeing the ability of DNA profiling to prove a rape charge that would otherwise have been completely unprovable. There was no more substantial evidence against the defendant than the DNA profile, of which Professor Jeffreys gave evidence.
When I started to practise at the Bar in 1971, if somebody had said to me that a scientist would come along in fewer than 20 years and produce what was in effect a photograph that looked as though it had a bar code on it, and which would identify one man from the whole population as a rapist, I should have said that he was quite mad. Yet fewer than 20 years later, it happened. Forensic science is gathering pace and forensic entomology is a growing aspect of forensic science that I believe will develop greatly in the next 20 years provided that it is given Government support.
Britain's only full-time forensic entomologist is Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu to whom I shall now refer for shorthand as Dr. Zak. I know that he does not object to that and everyone else seems to refer to him in that way. Dr. Zak is youngish and brilliant and the only full-time forensic entomologist in the United Kingdom. He works at the department of zoology in the university of Cambridge. He likens his profession to that of an archaeologist. He says:
A forensic investigation is building up a picture of the past. We're faced with evidence of what has happened and we aim to reconstruct those events.
In one case which he helped to solve, a 13-year-old girl has gone missing and a man suspected of her murder was found to be in possession of human bones which he had

hidden under his floorboards and at various other places around the house. Now comes the answer to my riddle earlier: when is a corpse not just a corpse? I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not meant to be a rude reference to the other place.
In this case, the accused had told the police that the bones were for medical research and that he had hidden them because he did not want to upset friends who visited him and who might have felt a little offended to see bones lying on the dining room table. But Dr. Zak was able to cast doubt on that story by finding a small fly called leptocera saenosa living among the bones. Thus, in a corpse there may be living organisms—indeed, living insects—which will give clues to what has happened.
The presence of that small fly—whose name I shall not attempt to pronounce again—showed that the bones were far from sterile, as the insect in question typically lives in unhygienic environments.
Even more damaging was the discovery that bones kept on a concrete base under the floor boards had living on them fly larvae and mites that are found only in soil. This, of course, demonstrated that the bones had until recently been buried in a grave and had been put under the floorboards later.
As Dr. Zak said:
the police suspected that somebody wouldn't dig up something from a grave unless they had something to hide.
The man was found guilty. We see there one example of the great help that Dr. Zak has been able to give to the police.
On the television programme "Suspicious Circumstances", shown in the summer of 1988 on Yorkshire Television, the very distinguished pathologist Professor Alan Usher said:
My infallible way of determining the time of death is to find out when the victim was last seen alive and when the victim was first seen dead, and then to presume that death occurred somewhere in between.
That was something of a joke, but there is an element of truth in it. I have seen many brilliant, top forensic pathologists giving evidence in courts throughout this land and I think that they would all agree that, as Professor Usher implied in those remarks, forensic pathology is often as much art as science and sometimes more art than science, particularly in determining the time and date of death.
I appeared as junior counsel in one case in which a skull was found in a Cheshire bog. The pathologist who examined the skull said that he thought that it was something over 20 years old. Being concerned about such an estimate, I suggested to those instructing me in the case that an attempt be made to date the skull more accurately. It was sent to a laboratory in Cambridge and there it was discovered that the skull was not 20 years or so old but 1,800 years old. Unfortunately for the accused, he had already confessed to a murder committed some 20 years or so before, of which he was duly convicted, despite the fact that the body was never found and the trial took place some 20 years or more later, and the conviction stood.
That example shows that pathological evidence on its own is often insufficient to answer the very important questions: did the deceased die and is the body found that of the deceased? 
There are many examples of cases in which Dr. Zak has been able to assist the police. The notorious Dixon case, involving the killing by shotgun of two entirely innocent holidaymakers, in June 1989 in Pembrokeshire is an


example of a case in which Dr. Zak's evidence will still, it is hoped, be useful. The entomological evidence was instrumental in determining the time of the murder. In the Anthony Samson Perera case, in 1985, a 13-year-old girl was murdered in west Yorkshire. Dr. Zak helped in that. In the Karen Price case, in Cardiff in December 1989, he was able to assist. Those are but three examples from a very long list in my possession.
Dr. Zak believes that forensic entomology is in its infancy in this country. It seems to be used more fully in other countries. In Hungary, for example, there are a number of forensic entomologists who have been able to carry out research on this subject, and it seems to be more widely used there. One can say that forensic entomology may acquire the status which has already been acquired by genetic profiling, or DNA fingerprinting.
I turn, therefore, to the funding of Dr. Zak, for this is at the root of the problem. Are we to have a forensic entomological service available in this country or not? If we are, there must be funding for it. For the past five and a half years, Dr. Zak's zoological and entomological research had been funded by the Field Studies Council, but the original five-year grant, already extended for a further year, will run out in August 1990. The good doctor receives token fees from the Home Office when he helps it, but he finds it difficult to extract adequate funds, due to financial pressure on the Home Office and on the police. He works for independent firms on projects and finds it much easier to obtain funding from them for such one-off projects. It is surprising that the police and the Home Office cannot value his work in the same way.
To be fair, it has been revealed in two parliamentary answers given to me by the Minister that the Home Office is looking into ways of funding Dr. Zak's further work. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that a conclusion to that review will be reached soon and that it will be favourable. It would be scandalous if the result was not favourable, having regard to Dr. Zak's potential and value, and to the need for more forensic entomologists.
The Home Office has circulated a letter to several forensic pathologists in the United Kingdom, seeking their view of the value of Dr. Zak's work. I have seen some of the replies. I understand that everyone who has replied so far has been in support of that work. I believe that it has the support of such distinguished pathologists as Professor Usher, whom I have already mentioned, and of Professor Bernard Knight of south Wales, another pathologist of extreme distinction and skill.
Apparently the problem is that it is very difficult for a person to obtain funding for research once he reaches the terrible old age of 35, which Dr. Zak has reached. It causes me much concern to discover that one is over the hill for original research when one passes the age of 35. Dr. Zak is finding that, if he were 22, it would be much easier to obtain research grants. It is right that young researchers should be given every encouragement, but I am sure the House would also agree that it is extremely important that research work should be judged on its merits. If a 79-year-old scientist comes up with original work which may be of public benefit, that should be supported. I hasten to add that Dr. Zak is much nearer 40 than an older age group.
Dr. Zak has been consulted by the Home Office 60 times in recent years. Each year his case load increases. That is directly attributable to wider knowledge of his existence and of the service that he provides. Despite the

fact that his expertise and availability are still poorly publicised to the vast majority of police forces, he has found that once he has been discovered by a police force it keeps coming back to him because his work has been so helpful.
Another reason for Dr. Zak's relative obscurity until, I am pleased to say, I could raise his case in this House, is the fact that decisions about when a murder investigation is entomologically intriguing are made by the wrong people. The common misconception is that, for an entomologist to be called in, the corpse must be infested with maggots. This is fallacious. Often, the absence of insects sheds light on an enigmatic investigation.
This branch of science and the scientist to whom I have referred—the brilliant, determined and redoubtable Dr. Zak—deserve the support of the House and, above all, the financial support of the Government. If the Minister cannot give an answer this morning about funding, I am sure that he will take into account what has been said and I hope that he will be able to confirm that the Government will shortly make an announcement about such funding.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): As an over-35-yearold myself, I appreciate—at this time in the morning, perhaps I should say that I understand—why the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has taken the trouble to initiate the debate about the case of Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu, the distinguished entomologist.
Forensic entomology is not a new science but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has implied, it has developed slowly and its potential has not yet been fully assessed. As he says, forensic entomologists rely from time to time on entomological findings in their investigation of suspicious deaths, particularly where time of death can be estimated from the amount of insect activity present on or around a corpse. The forensic entomologist can also provide details of time of the burial of a body, the environment where death occurred and whether a body has been moved.
In practice, however, the advice of a forensic entomologist is needed in comparatively few serious cases, perhaps up to 50 a year. The forensic science service does not employ anyone on a full-time basis to do this sort of work. Such expertise as has been required in the past has been obtained from university departments. In fact, the forensic science service rarely consults forensic entomologists direct—the entomologists almost invariably gives his advice to the police or to the forensic pathologist involved in the case. Although forensic entomologists become involved in the investigation of only a small proportion of very serious crimes, their advice can often be crucial. One of the small group of specialists in this field is Dr. Zakaria Erzinclioglu. I, too, shall call him Dr. Zak.
We are aware from the representations that we have received in the past few months, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, how well regarded Dr. Zak is, especially by forensic pathologists who have worked with him, and of the occasions when he has given much valued assistance to the police. Unfortunately, as we have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman, Dr. Zak's research contract at Cambridge university will terminate later this year. With this in mind, we have been consulting widely on the use made of his services and the value of his work in criminal investigations. We hope soon


to be in a position to decide whether we shall be able to provide funding to enable him to continue his research at Cambridge, and we shall be writing to him and, as I have undertaken, to the hon. and learned Gentleman in the near future.
I am sorry that I cannot be more precise and informative this morning but I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing on his professional knowledge as a barrister and for directing the House's attention to Dr. Zak's merits and predicament, and for the chance to assure him again that we have them very much in mind.

Orders of the Day — Late Abortions

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am immensely grateful for this opportunity to raise the recent historic ruling of Mr. Justice Brooke. I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will be joining the debate shortly, and I should like to put on record my gratitude to him, as he has answered a number of debates on abortion, usually at unseasonal hours. He also answered an earlier debate during the night. Indeed, I am usually accompanied on these occasions by my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess). The last time that my hon. Friend the Minister answered a debate of ours, on 27 July, he asked, "When shall we three meet again?" I am afraid that on this occasion, there are only the two of us, but the others join me in the remarks that I intend to make.
The ruling by Mr. Justice Brooke was in the case of a mother who had sued a health authority because she bore a handicapped son. She had asked the health authority, or at least the doctors, to abort the son at 27½ weeks. To their credit, the doctors refused. They said that, even though handicap was present, under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, the pregnancy had advanced too far and they refused the abortion.
In ruling in favour of the doctors and the health authority and against the mother who had claimed damages, Mr. Justice Brooke took the opportunity to give a long overdue and much-needed clarification of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, which states that it is an offence of child destruction to destroy a child capable of being born alive. It goes on to say that there is a presumption that the child will be born alive at 28 weeks, but if a child is capable of being born alive before that time, it is still protected under the Act. The Act says that, after 28 weeks, there is prima facie proof that the child could be born alive. The burden of proof would be on the doctor performing an abortion after that time to show that the child could not have been born alive. Before the 28th week, the burden of proof lies on those who would prosecute the doctor.
The words
capable of being born alive
have been construed in different ways. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister in his place. I refer him back to the debate on the Carlisle baby on 8 June last year. I asked several questions in that debate. I asked why, when the child had been born alive as a result of an abortion which had gone wrong, and had survived gasping and with a pulse rate for three hours, resuscitation was not provided. My hon. Friend the Minister replied that the doctors had decided that this was not a viable birth. I asked why the child was not registered for birth or for death. I obtained the same answer in each case. The doctors had decided that it was not a viable birth.
Mr. Justice Brooke ruled that the meaning of the words
capable of being born alive
was that a child was capable of surviving independently of its mother
even if only for a short time".
Those are the crucial words, and that is the crucial clarification. Many of my hon. Friends and I have claimed over a long period that that was the correct interpretation


of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The Carlisle baby, who survived for three hours—a short time, but nevertheless it survived—was therefore born alive.
The medical profession and, I regret to say, the Department of Health, however, have tended to define life in terms of long-term viability. That does not stand up in logic. If I were terminally ill, I might have no long-term viability but no one would suggest that I was not alive. We do not say that our hospices are full of unviable beings. They are full of current living people. The Carlisle baby was a living child.
If Mr. Justice Brooke's interpretation of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is true—at present, that is the ruling that we have in law and the only recent judicial clarification that I know of on the matter—it follows that all those children who are aborted in National Health Service or private clinics at an age when they are capable of surviving, if only for a short time, are protected by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 and that those who destroy them commit the offence of child destruction.
Does the Minister agree that, under the terms of Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling, at least 2,000 illegal abortions are carried out every year in National Health Service and private clinics? The medical profession says that, at 22 weeks, there is a 5 per cent. chance of long-term survival, yet 2,000 abortions are carried out after 22 weeks. How is that compatible with Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling on the Infant Life (Preservation) Act? The medical profession tells us that, after 24 weeks, there is a 15 per cent. chance of survival. We know that children of 24 weeks are regularly horn breathing and with a pulse rate. Every year, however, there are some 20 abortions after 24 weeks. How are those abortions compatible with Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling that, if a child is capable of surviving for even a short time, that child is covered and protected by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act? Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that in all those cases the Act has been violated? 
We must remember that Mr. Justice Brooke gave his ruling in the case of handicap. He did not say that there were exemptions to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. He said in a straightforward manner that, if a child is capable of surviving, albeit for a very short time, it is protected. What is a very short time? Let us consider abortions at 20 weeks. We must remember that the Carlisle baby was 21 weeks, but it survived for three hours. Surely there must be cases of earlier survivals for shorter periods. Let us take the 20th week as the guide, which surely must be logical, given that the NHS has clear guidelines that, after the 20th week, resuscitation equipment shall be available.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Lady is talking about being logical, but could she make it clear where she stands on the issue? 
As I understand it, 1 million women are at risk from an unplanned pregnancy. During the course of a year, a third of them become pregnant—half of them have an unplanned child and the others have an unplanned abortion, which is much to be regretted. The hon. Lady's solution to the problem is to lock up the doctors, but does she accept that she is approaching the problem from the wrong direction? We are all sorry about any abortions, particularly late ones, but why does the hon. Lady approach the matter from the legal angle, when we should be approaching it from the opposite direction? Why does

she believe that there is a hard and fast point at which the law can decide whether a child is viable? Surely those matters should be left largely to the medical profession.
I believe that the hon. Lady is wrong to think that the law can be used as some kind of a weapon in her campaign against abortion. She should consider the practice in Holland, where, the number of abortions is half that carried out here, although the laws are much more liberal.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken once today. I gave way to him out of courtesy, expecting an intervention, but I got another speech. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, no matter how pressing the points that he wants to raise.
The hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood the nature of the debate. I am willing to engage with him on the general principles of abortion at a time that will come shortly. I am not talking about what I think is the right line, what I want to do with the doctors or where I want to define women's rights, but about Mr. Justice Brooke's legal ruling. I want to know what the Department of Health is doing about complying with that legal ruling. As Mr. Justice Brooke has talked about survival which lasts for only a short, unspecified period, as the basis of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, is the Minister satisfied that abortions which are carried out when a child can survive, albeit for a short time, are within the law? 
When he replied to my debates on the Carlisle baby case and to the administration of the Abortion Act 1967, last June and July respectively, the Minister said that he accepted that his Department had to work within the confines of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. In view of the recent judicial ruling, does he think that his Department is doing that? 
Another case has recently made headlines—that of Ashley Gardiner, a child of eight months gestation, who died when an allegedly reckless and drunken driver killed his mother. In that case, the Crown prosecution service decided that it would not prosecute for death caused by dangerous driving. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot answer for the Attorney-General's decisions, but there is a similarity of language in the replies to those two cases.
My hon. Friend the Minister gave a thorough reply to the Carlisle baby case debate, for which we were all most grateful. He said that it was a distressing and sad case, but nothing would be done about it. The Attorney-General said exactly the same. He said that it was sad that an eight-month-old child had been killed in the womb, but he was not actually going to do anything about it.
We have had Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling, and at eight months that child was clearly capable of being born alive. Therefore, it was capable of being destroyed under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, so it was capable of being killed. I do not understand why the man alleged to have caused the incident is not being prosecuted for causing death.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that viability in the long term is not an accurate interpretation of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act? What investigations will he demand into the alleged King's college baby case, the facts of which emerged in Sunday newspapers two weeks ago after a member of staff was so distressed by what had happened that she wrote to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) setting out the facts. That incident has shades of the Carlisle baby case.
The alleged facts in the King's college baby case are that a child of 27 weeks, clearly more than capable of being born alive, suffering from a relatively minor but certainly not a serious and incapacitating handicap, was killed in the womb while its healthy and fit twin was allowed to go on living. That was described as a selective reduction, in which a pair of children are growing in the womb and the doctors decide which one shall be allowed to live and which one shall die. Can the Minister honestly say that such a policy complies with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act? If it does, why is that so? If it does not, what steps does he intend to take? 
I return to some of the questions that I raised in July about the administration of the 1967 Act. The Minister is familiar with the questions. Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling has changed the answers that I was given then, or certainly should do. My question was this. If a child is not capable of being born alive, what is the point of the lethal injection of urea or saline that is given in the administration of the prostaglandin method of late abortions? That method is widely used in the National Health Service, as opposed to the dismemberment method which is so grotesquely used in the private clinics and which the Minister continues to allow. The prostaglandin method involves inducing an early birth and administering a lethal injection which, in the words of the medical text books, ensures that the child is born dead.
If the child is not capable of being born alive in the first place, what is the purpose of an injection to ensure that it is born dead? If a doctor is giving an injection deliberately to kill a child which he believes to be capable of being born alive, surely he is violating the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Under Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling, which has nothing to do with long-term viability but everything to do with short-term survival and short-term independent breathing—he talked not about existence but about independent breathing—how can lethal injections be compatible with observation by the Health Service of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act? Surely that is illogical and wrong.
Does the Minister accept that there is a lack of will throughout the Health Service, and certainly within the Department, to ensure that the Abortion Act 1967 is policed in its own right? Surely the effect of Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling is that the amendments to be tabled to the Embryology Bill by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and myself will be unnecessary. If the Act was properly policed and if the Infant Life (Preservation) Act was properly enforced, the abortions that we wish to outlaw would be outlawed already. Is it not the case that, under Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling, those abortions which are already outlawed are greater in number than those which we would outlaw? 
We have been obliged, reluctantly but of necessity, to exempt all cases of severe handicap. Mr. Justice Brooke has not made that exemption. Indeed, his ruling was based on a case of handicap. Mr. Justice Brooke is saying that, if the law were properly administered, no changes would be necessary to the 1967 Act to bring about the limitation on late abortions that is desired by the majority of Members in this place.
Surely there is a clear responsibility on the Minister, first, to outlaw the use of lethal injections and, secondly, to outlaw all abortions for whatever reason except saving the life of the mother after the 22nd week at the latest, and probably after the 20th week if we take the judge's views as they stand. If my hon. Friend does not accept that, how does he interpret Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling? What will he do to ensure that the Health Service and private clinics observe the ruling? What has already been done to observe the ruling, which is several weeks old? 
I turn to the dismemberment method. Surely there must be a clear case for saying that if a child that is capable of being born alive is protected by the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, what goes on in the private clinics—live dismemberment of babies after the 18th week of gestation without anaesthetic—is a violation of the Act and a gross atrocity under the Act. We have been claiming that for some time, and the Minister's standard response has been to say that the method of abortion chosen has to be down to clinical judgment.
I ask my hon. Friend this question. We know that the eight-month-old baby in the womb who died as a result of a road accident is claimed not to have died. If that baby had already been born and was being transported in an incubator when it met with the accident, the death of a live person would have been recorded. There is no doubt that the law would have said that that was a death. Yet because the child was in the womb he was deemed not to have died.
Does the Minister accept that we would not countenance or even dream in our worst nightmares of the live dismemberment, for whatever reason, of a child in an incubator? We would not even dream of creeping up and giving that child a lethal injection, and live dismemberment would be utterly repugnant, so why is it acceptable when practised on a child of identical age and development in the womb? Is it because we see the one and not the other? Is it the fact that we can see the pain and the reaction of the child in the incubator that makes such an act unthinkable? 
It is very convenient that we do not see the pain of the child in the womb—it is hidden from us. Is that the reasoning—that we can do wrong so long as we cannot see that we are doing wrong? Is it really down to medical judgment whether a child shall be dismembered alive? Now that there is no longer a shred of doubt that such children are protected under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, will my Friend consider outlawing that method? 
Perhaps the fact that that method is permissible does not come down to whether its effects are seen or not seen. Perhaps we now define life in terms of our perception of life. If a child is wanted it is a person. If it is not wanted—even if it is an identical twin, as in the case of the King's college baby—it is not a person. That is the slippery slope. If we start to define humanity in terms of our perception of humanity we shall be doing what was done by a regime in the 1930s which defined an entire race as sub-human. That is what is done—if not in theory, in practice—by racially repressive regimes everywhere. If we start to define humanity according to our wants and perceptions rather than on objective criteria, we are heading for a very dark age indeed.
I said earlier that Mr. Justice Brooke had protected even the handicapped, and Mr. Justice Brooke is to be congratulated. During the passage of the Bill unsuccessfully introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, any handicapped person could switch on the television or radio


at any hour of the day or evening and hear politicians such as myself glibly discussing whether they had the right to be born. That is not an insult that we would offer to any racial or religious group. How dare we single out the handicapped for such an insult and treat them as a race apart? Will the Minister now accept that, as a result of Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling, handicapped children capable of being born alive are as well protected under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929—and under the Abortion Act 1967, which must comply with the terms of that Act—as fit and healthy children, who account for 92 per cent. of all abortions after the 18th week? If the Minister does not accept that, can he tell us how he squares Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling with that refusal? 
Mr. Justice Brooke has done something that we have been requiring for a long time, but it should not have been down to Mr. Justice Brooke to make that decision. The terms of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act have always been abundantly clear. A child does not have to be born alive or to survive long term—it merely has to be capable of being born alive. What we have been given by Mr. Justice Brooke is a definition of "born alive"—breathing independently for only a short time.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what is the earliest recorded birth or abortion in which the child breathed for only a short time. With regard to the Carlisle baby case, is it not true that there were precedents, that other children had been born breathing, at earlier stages of gestation? They may not have been capable of surviving, but clearly they were capable of being born breathing. I suggest the test that I mentioned earlier. If a doctor really believes that a child is not capable of being born alive, there is no point in a lethal injection. I suspect that if a lethal injection were not given, and if the NHS guidance were that the child must be given every possible chance, there would be many fewer abortions because doctors would not be willing to take the risk.
The other point about which I am concerned is the lack of will to enforce the Acts in their own right—long before the passage of any amendment in this parliamentary Session. How many doctors have been prosecuted for aborting children who were capable of being born alive? I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me that over a very long period there has been only one. Yet there is clear evidence, as in the Carlisle case and in the King's College case, that this abuse is going on all the time. Any child who is aborted after a certain stage of gestation would have had a chance, however slim, of being born alive. For that reason, there should be more prosecutions. It is as simple as that.
Those of us who have worked to have the legislation amended have been channeling our energies in the right direction, but there is another way—mere enforcement of the law as it stands. As I have said, Mr. Justice Brooke has made it abundantly clear that the law is already adequate to do all the things for which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and I have been calling. The legislative changes for which we have been asking would be unnecessary if only the law were applied.
Will the Minister please look again at the guidelines on resuscitation? During the debate on the Carlisle baby case, on 8 June, he told me that resuscitation equipment had to be available from the 20th week. But "available" means

simply "on the premises". The equipment does not actually have to be used; it merely has to be there. The mere presence of equipment does not mean that any effort will be made to save a live baby.
To qualify for a licence, a private clinic must have resuscitation equipment if it is to abort after the 20th week. But even if that equipment remained unused, uncleaned, unmaintained, its mere presence would enable the clinic to comply with the guidelines issued by the Minister. Should there not be a very clear requirement that if a child is born alive, resuscitation equipment must be used? If the child is not capable of long-term existence, the resuscitation equipment will ultimately be unsuccessful, but at least we should know that efforts had been made to save the child.
The Carlisle case, to which I keep referring, is the clearest demonstration largely because it was the result of a coroner's inquiry and we have sworn affidavits and do not have to rely on rumour or newspaper reports. We have a clear legal guidance as to what went on.
The Carlisle case epitomises what I suspect goes on a great deal. I doubt whether there are children gasping for three hours on kidney dishes in wards up and down the country—I do not wish to paint such a horrible picture—but in a lesser sense, I suspect that there are many Carlisle babies born alive who breathe for just a short time and who are treated as though they had never breathed at all, as though they were the foetuses which the pro-abortion lobby claims them to be.
That is the problem. It is one of misuse of language. If a baby is wanted, it is a baby. It is referred to as a baby from the moment of its conception. If it is not wanted it is a foetus, even while its identical twin, in the King's College case, is a baby. What sort of doublespeak, dual standards and misuse of language is that? 
Will the Minister seriously consider investigating fully the allegations surrounding the King's College baby and give an absolute undertaking that he will consider referring that case for prosecution on the facts as they are alleged, because there almost certainly should be such a prosecution? 
We are told that that case caused great distress to members of staff, but, as so often, as the Select Committee on Social Services has been hearing while it considers the conscience clause, a member of staff writes and says what happened but asks not to be identified. Is there an atmosphere of fear in the Health Service? Has the Minister considered whether that conscience clause is being adequately upheld? If, in horrifying cases such as the Carlisle case and the alleged King's Cross case, staff are afraid to speak out, how much less ready must they be to speak out over smaller, routine—if I may put it that way—violations of the Abortion Act 1967 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929? 
The pressure of fear should be removed. No member of staff, either of an NHS department or of a private clinic, should ever have to write to any Member of Parliament, as they do in droves, and ask not to be named. One of the most difficult features of the investigation now going on in the Select Committee is not the lack of evidence but the utter unwillingness of people who believe that they have been discriminated against because they do not believe in assisting at abortions, to be named for fear of their careers, their future progress, and sometimes of jeopardising their jobs.
We heard, oh so eloquently, from one consultant that he was prepared to come forward and give his name


because he was now a consultant, but a few weeks earlier, when he sent his initial letter to the Committee, he did not want his name made public. What sort of atmosphere are conscientious objectors working in in the Health Service—I assume that they would not be in a private clinic because they are dedicated clinics—that even in the worst hospital cases and the worst excesses of abuse they do not want their names to be given? 
I sum up by putting some questions to my hon. Friend the Minister which I would be grateful if he could attempt to answer in the time left for the debate. He has always answered debates on this subject thoroughly. We are grateful for his careful explanations and for his almost invariable follow-up in writing. I know that he will answer my questions to the best of his ability.
Does my hon. Friend accept that Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling must be observed in the Health Service and in the private clinics? If he does, and if he accepts Mr. Justice Brooke's decision that they are capable of being born alive, does he also accept that, already, without any changes to the 1967 Act, thousands of illegal abortions are being carried out in this country by the NHS and by private clinics? 
Does he accept that the ruling given by Mr. Justice Brooke now protects the handicapped child in exactly the same way as it protects the fit and healthy child? Does he accept that the use of lethal injections means that a doctor must believe that there is a chance that the child is capable of being born alive and, therefore, under Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling, such injections should not be given? Does he accept that long-term viability can no longer be used as a criterion for assessing whether a birth is live, because his answers in the Carlisle baby case about the birth and death registrations were not that it was not a live birth, but that it was not a viable birth? Will he accept that there is now a clear contradiction between Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling and assuming long-term viability to be the criterion? 
Will the Under-Secretary consider revised guidelines specifying not only that resuscitation equipment must be available, but that it must be used if a child is born breathing? Once again, I ask the Under-Secretary to accept that there has to be a case in humanity, never mind in law, for reconsidering the social, legal and moral acceptability of live dismemberment without anaesthetic? Will he undertake to investigate thoroughly the allegations surrounding the King's College baby case? Will he state clearly that there is no case in law, as it stands, particularly under Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling, for saying that a handicapped twin can be "selectively reduced", as they delightfully described it—I would call it by a stronger term, but I will not use it because I have tried to avoid emotive terms such as murder—in the womb at 27 weeks, while its twin is allowed to live? Will he say that, if that did happen, it is illegal? 
Will the Under-Secretary of State say whether he believes that there is an atmosphere of fear in the NHS among people with conscientious objections? Although I understand that he will wish to await the report of the Select Committee before responding to any courses of action that might be recommended, will he at least state his concern that those with conscientious objections should be fully protected under the Act? 
Will the Under-Secretary of State say that, if the Act were properly policed and enforced, there would be no need for legislative changes and that those changes are needed because the Act is not properly policed and not properly enforced? 
Will the Minister say what revised guidance he has issued in the light of Mr. Justice Brook's ruling? if he has not issued any revised guidance, why not? 
In short, will my hon. Friend state what effect that historic ruling has on the conduct of late abortions in this country, and will he guarantee that if there are clear violations of either the Abortion Act 1967 or the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, it is his Department's view that those violations should be referred for prosecution? In other words, will he guarantee that the Acts are vigorously enforced, rather than loosely conducted? I should be grateful if he could answer those few queries.
As I said earlier, I understand that he cannot comment on the case of the child who died in the accident, but he may perhaps like to reflect on what would have happened if it had been a child in an incubator, and whether there is need for further clarification.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With the leave of the House, I call the Under-Secretary of State.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I was going to seek your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak twice in this debate.
I believe that both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Ann Widdecombe) are somewhat surprised at her good fortune in being called at what is likely to be the conclusion of this debate.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's undoubted energies. To be as fresh and as lucid as she has been at this hour of the morning is no mean feat, but to maintain the enthusiasm and dedication to the causes which she holds so dear is a most remarkable quality. I pay tribute to her: to speak so eloquently for nearly 40 minutes without notes is an incredible achievement, and one of which the whole House should be proud.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of important issues. I think that she will understand if I am reluctant to comment either on case law or on matters that are really for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. She will not expect a Health Minister charged with administering the present law to venture too far down the path of commenting on recent cases, but I shall do my level best.
Let me say at the outset that abortion is not a convenience but a tragedy, in each and every case. Those are my personal feelings, but I am sure that they are shared throughout the House. We sometimes fall into the trap of believing that abortion, at whatever stage of gestation, is a medical convenience rather like minor surgery, but it is always a tragedy for the mother—indeed, for both parents of the life that is involved.
The scale of abortion is significant, not only in Britain but in other western European countries. Earlier in this Consolidated Fund Bill debate we talked at some length about the pressures on the National Health Service. It should be noted that some of the demands are created by


ourselves, and not by the natural misfortunes of life—the afflictions that we, as human beings, may not be capable of controlling.
There are substantial pressures on the obstetric and gynaecological departments of NHS hospitals arising from the demand for abortions. I make no moral judgment, as a Minister of the Crown, about the need for such abortions, because the law provides for such services under the 1967 Act; I merely comment that we should not dismiss the pressure for them lightly, as some minor convenience that is provided for all who seek it.
It may be helpful if I review briefly the legislative background to abortion issues. As my hon. Friend said, it is an offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 to destroy the life of a child that is capable of being born alive, except when that is done in good faith for the sole purpose of saving the mother's life. Although she did not refer to it specifically, I think that my hon. Friend has always accepted that that exemption clause exists, allowing abortion regardless of gestation period to save the mother's life.
The 1929 Act contains a rebuttable presumption that a foetus of 28 weeks' gestation or more is capable of being born alive. In the event of a prosecution under the Act in respect of the death of a child of 28 weeks' gestation or more, the onus would be on the defence to prove that the foetus was not capable of being born alive. In the case of the death of a child before the lapse of 28 weeks, it would be for the prosecution to prove that the child was capable of being born alive.
Let me make two observations. First, I am sure that my hon. Friend would accept that, even with the advance in medical science, it is still difficult to date precisely the gestation period involved in a particular case. We are making best estimates. Our understanding of the gestation process and of the date at which fertilisation occurred and, therefore, of the age of the foetus is improving, but it is still imperfect.
I sense, too, that that there is a growing consensus among hon. Members, based in part on medical advice, that the 28-week period could and should be reduced. I believe that that is a relatively uncontroversial statement, but this is a matter not for the Government but for the House. I merely comment that to reduce the gestation period from 28 to 24 weeks would be a move that the House might find convenient. It would reflect a consensus among the medical profession, due, I suspect, to significant advances in medical technology.

Miss Widdecombe: I believe that the Minister has just made an extremely dangerous statement. Many members of the medical profession believe that the limit should be very much lower than 24 weeks. We have also been assured throughout that there is no Government and Department position on the precise number of weeks. There is a danger that the Minister's statement, although uttered in good faith, will be taken as a pre-emptive statement. I should be grateful if he would state specifically that there are plenty of doctors, consultants, obstetricians and gynaecologists who believe that 24 weeks is too high.

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. I was choosing my words carefully.

Miss Widdecombe: But not carefully enough.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It allows me to make it plain that the Government do not have a view and that I was merely reflecting what seemed to me to be a consensus, based upon advances in medical technology. Of course she is right that the difference between 23, 24 or 25 weeks is a matter of judgment. I am merely reflecting the advice received from medical circles: that a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks might be based upon advances in medical technology. However, I fully understand my hon. Friend's position.
The main thrust of my hon. Friend's speech was directed towards the ruling of 5 February. It is a recent ruling. My hon. Friend is very quick off the mark—quicker, perhaps, than the Department of Health, in the sense that we are talking about a judgment that is only six weeks old. She would not expect me at this stage to gibe a definitive answer as to our view of Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling. That is primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
My hon. Friend's main comment was that the definition
capable of being born alive
as commented upon in Mr. Justice Brooke's judgment could have a different interpretation from the one that some people have put upon it. In other words, it is not just long-term viability: it is the ability to survive, if only for a few hours. I shall seek to deal with my hon Friend's comments, but may I preface my remarks by underlining once again that medical technology has advanced considerably since 1929 and that it is advancing all the time. In a clinical sense, therefore, the definition of "viability" is not immutable and fixed for all time. It is changing.
When I visited St. Helier hospital last week—a major London hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman)— I saw the excellent efforts of the staff there to keep alive premature babies of very small birth weight by means of techniques that were undreamed of five or 10 years ago. Another great pressure on resources in the Health Service—I referred earlier to abortions—and one to which we are happy to respond is the pressure to provide the technology, equipment and staff to keep alive premature babies, some born after a gestation period that would not even have been contemplated a few years ago.
The case involving the judgment given by Mr. Justice Brooke has only just been fully reported and its implications will have to be carefully considered. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take great care to interpret the judgment. That is primarily a matter for the Law Officers, but I assure her—prompted by this debate, which has been helfpul—that we shall, with all speed, ensure that the implications of that judgment are properly considered.
Matters relating to the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 are for the Home Secretary, as his Department is responsible for the administration of that Act. It is widely known that the consensus of the main medical and professional bodies is that, with the advances in medical and scientific development in neonatal medicine, it is now possible for some babies born after 24 weeks to survive. I accept my hon. Friend's comment that, while she does not dispute that fact, she would perhaps extend it to include infants born after a shorter gestation period. My Department took steps to draw that view, shared by the relevant royal colleges, to the attention of members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Administratively, the 24-week limit has been imposed on those private facilities approved under the Abortion Act 1967. Under that, as my hon. Friend will know, they are authorised to carry out terminations after 20 weeks, and we have taken the step already of imposing the new lower limit administratively. There is of course the exception, to which I referred, in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.
In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, in Great Britain there were 23 abortions after 24 weeks. I cannot give my hon. Friend the number within that 23 where it could be said that the abortion was necessary to preserve the life of the mother, but when I respond more fully to her in writing I will give her that analysis.
My hon. Friend referred to a case allegedly involving selective termination of pregnancy at King's College hospital. As she said, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has written to the Minister for Health drawing attention to that and asking a number of questions. Details of that distressing case were reported recently in the Sunday Express. My Department's regional liaison division is conducting inquiries into the circumstances of that case and will shortly be reporting, not only to Ministers at the Department of Health but to the Law Officers. I look forward to those inquiries being completed quickly.
I share my hon. Friend's view that the Ashley Gardiner case, which involved reckless driving, was unfortunate. I well understand her anxiety and distress about the outcome of the case. As she rightly said, those are matters for the Law Officers, and she will not expect me to comment further.
My hon. Friend implied that there was a loss of will by the Department of Health in monitoring the 1967 Act. I assure her that that is not the case. She argued that there were imperfections in the Act, and that she wished to see Parliament change the 1967 Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act. Given the law as it stands, it is emphatically not the case that there is a lack of will in the Department of Health. My Department maintains a team of investigating officers, including doctors, nurses and administrative staff, and I assure my hon. Friend that any complaints about specific cases, raised from whatever source, are properly and fully investigated and that, where necessary, appropriate action is taken.

Miss Widdecombe: Can my hon. Friend honestly say that the Carlisle baby case would have been referred to a coroner and properly investigated if, after several months during which the Department and medical services did absolutely nothing, a member of staff had not finally gone to a Catholic priest? Did that show that the Act was being monitored properly?

Mr. Freeman: I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties and strong feelings, but we must operate in the real world. My hon. Friend is right to say that we rely on the good will and co-operation of staff, whether consultants, nursing staff or midwives, for advice and information. Ministers in the Department and the Law Officers are not all-knowing and all-seeing, so to that extent my hon. Friend's remarks are accepted. Ministers in successive Governments have seen as highly important the administration of abortion legislation to ensure that no one, whether in NHS of

private hospitals, is above the law. A proper implementation of observance of legislation is also important to protect the women who choose to have abortions, and we must not forget the health of the women involved. I resist my hon. Friend's implication that there is a lack of will and determination to enforce the law by the Government and the Department.
My hon. Friend referred to lethal injections. I realise that she finds these techniques repugnant. Whatever one's personal views about abortion, it is always a tragedy when an abortion occurs. The method adopted is, of course, a matter for clinical judgment. It is neither sensible nor practical to define in legislation the method used to terminate pregnancies.
My hon. Friend referred to prosecutions.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has not missed the point, but he has not answered the point on injections. If a doctor believes that a child is incapable of being born alive, what is the point of giving it a lethal injection to ensure that it is born dead? Is there not a straight contradiction there? Is not the doctor saying, by administering a lethal injection, that the child could be born alive? If he is saying that, is that not an infringement of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act?

Mr. Freeman: There are two issues here. The first is my hon. Friend's key argument, which is the interpretation of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act-is the child capable of being born alive? I have said clearly that the recent judgment by Mr. Justice Brooke, which appears to interpret the 1929 Act in terms of the ability of the child to survive for only a few hours, is receiving careful attention. I shall not give my hon. Friend a definitive answer this morning and she would not expect me to. The judgment that has to be made by the clinician involved is separate from the techniques, however repulsive and repugnant, used by the clinician to render the medical services necessary to the woman in a particular case. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is not sensible to enshrine in legislation or regulation a precise medical technique.
On the conscience clause, I am aware that officials from my Department have given evidence to the Select Committee on Social Services. We await its report with interest and I assure my hon. Friend, who serves on that Committee and through her the Chairman and members of that Committee that the recommendations and observations of the Committee will be given very careful consideration and attention. I am given to understand that that report is expected shortly, and I know that the whole House will be interested in it.
In conclusion, I repeat and sum up the answers that I have given to the nine points that my hon. Friend made at the end of her speech. I am unable to answer the questions dealing with the legalities. She would not expect me to comment on those; that is not a matter for me or for the Department. of Health. She asked whether Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling should be observed: we are carefully studying that recent judgment, which has great significance for abortion procedures. She asked whether handicapped children are covered: all children are covered. I will take further advice on that matter, but that is my initial response.
I hope that I have dealt with the issue of lethal injections. My hon. Friend referred to lives being "dismembered": the use of medical techniques is a matter


for the clinicians involved. She asked whether we will issue revised guidelines on procedures: once we have considered Mr. Justice Brooke's ruling and taken further advice, if revised guidelines are needed we will certainly issue them. She asked whether the King's college baby case will be investigated: I have already given my hon. Friend some assurances on that score.
Regarding the conscience clause and the Select Committee's report, we await that with interest, and any recommendations that may be made will be followed very carefully.
My hon. Friend asked whether the law will be enforced: yes, with diligence. It is a matter for the House to make a judgment on amendment to the abortion law. Each hon. Member will have his or her vote on that most important matter when it comes before the House.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION) BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, notwithstanding that such provisions could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on consideration of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] to provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION) BILL [Lords] [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] may provide for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of money representing cash, and accrued interest on cash, forfeit under provisions of that Act conferring powers in respect of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Mr. Brian Wood

Mr. Simon Burns: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of Mr. Brian Wood of Woody's Peat, Seabrights farm, Galleywood, Chelmsford, signed by over 1,600 of his concerned and very loyal customers.
They are extremely worried about the enforcement action that Chelmsford borough council has taken against Mr. Wood's one-man peat distribution business, which has been operating out of his premises for the past 11 years. The petitioners are worried that, if the enforcement order is proceeded with, his business will have to cease trading on 13 May 1990. The petitioners pray that
your honourable House will duly consider this Petition and strongly urge the Chelmsford Borough Council to reconsider a change of heart by allowing Mr. Wood to carry on his business and occupation of Seabrights Farm on a Personal Permission basis which are both wholly related to Agriculture and Horticulture.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — M V Marine

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Neville Trotter: The tale of the loss of the M V Marine is tragic and shocking. All cases in which a ship perishes with its entire crew must, of course, be tragic, but I suggest that in the case of the Marine there was also a shocking story of a ship that was taken to sea with a crew half of whom were inexperienced and quite untrained, and with only three experienced men on board.
The vessel sailed from Liverpool during the night of 9-10 December last, with a cargo of scrap iron bound for Seville. She was 15 years old and 2,800 tonnes dead weight. I shall return later to the time gap before she was reported missing and a sadly unsuccessful search for her was launched.
I draw the attention of the House particularly to the woefully inadequate crewing of the ship. I know that all hon. Members share with me the deepest sympathy with the relatives of those who perished with the vessel. We should also share a sense of outrage at the way in which those responsible for the ship sent her to sea so disgracefully and dangerously undermanned.
The vessel had been sold in October 1989 by its Swedish owners to a Panamanian company, Tropica Armadora, when the new owner transferred her to the flag of the Bahamas. Before the sale, the vessel had a crew of nine—a master, a chief officer, a second officer, three qualified and certificated able seamen, a cook, a chief engineer and a motorman. After her transfer to the Bahamas flag, the vessel sailed with a crew of only six—a master, a mate, a chief engineer and three ratings. Most importantly, those three ratings were unqualified and had been recruited from a jobcentre. They were raw young lads from Tyneside. They were promised training, but it is clear that no serious training in the art of seamanship was given to them. Indeed, in the circumstances of the vessel, it was clear that no training could be given. There were only three qualified men on the ship and the other half of the crew had no experience whatever.
Each of the three deck crew had joined exactly four weeks before the ship sailed. That was the only experience that they had had at sea. One of them, George Cramman, was a constituent of mine. He had been a bricklayer until he had sailed four weeks before on his first voyage. The three lads were completely lacking in any nautical experience or training. By any reasonable criteria, the ship put to sea with insufficient crew.

Mr. Don Dixon: Three of the men who were lost at sea were my constituents. Indeed, Mark Rannigan was only 17 years old and had no experience or training when he was recruited for that ship.

Mr. Trotter: I agree absolutely. A particularly tragic aspect of the loss was the age of the three young men. One was only 16 or 17, a mere boy.
It seems that the three lads had been told that the vessel had a crew of eight or nine and that they would be trained. I would expect uncertified and inexperienced deck crew to be taken on a ship on the basis of being additional to the experienced crew responsible for the sailing of the vessel. Indeed, the United Kingdom regulations stipulate that unqualified sailors should not be counted as part of the


crew for safe manning purposes. The ship must have sailed without complying with international standards for safe crewing in terms of the size, training and experience of the crew.
So the vessel set off on that December night from Liverpool to the bay of Biscay, in the middle of winter, faced with many hours of severe weather, with only three experienced sailors on board and with three young lads fresh from the jobcentre on Tyneside. Presumably the engineer worked below deck. That would leave only two competent sailors, the captain and the mate, to man the ship—to navigate and to keep watch, presumably turn and turn about. This was a ship of 2,800 tonnes, not a tiny coasting vessel. There was no back-up for anything that happened unexpectedly. Presumably there were times when one of the three young men was left on his own in control of the ship.
If the point came where lifeboats had to be launched, the crew were incapable of launching them, especially in the weather conditions into which the vessel was sailing in the bay of Biscay. The young men had no experience or proper training in lifeboat drills, an elementary part of basic sea training. I understand that the lifeboats could not be automatically lowered and had to be lowered manually. How could three untrained lads cope properly in a storm in those circumstances? 
I must comment on the role of the jobcentre in South Shields in the recruitment of the three young men. Apparently, a 20-year-old girl was offered a job on the ship but, fortunately for her, she turned it down. I understand that a company called Laird Line Ltd. asked the jobcentre to help recruit trainee crew members and a ship's engineer. The vacancy that was displayed by the jobcentre, in good faith, stated that no qualifications were necessary, and that training would be provided to enable recruits to obtain deck hand and able seamen certificates, as well as engine room qualifications. The display also explained that suitable applicants would be encouraged to take up full apprenticeships in those occupations.
Given the circumstances of the ship, that was an outrageous description. Serious inquiries need to be made about how such a misleading advertisement was displayed in the jobcentre. In due course, I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister with responsibility for that subject, although today—quite properly—the reply to this debate will be given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping, rather than by one of my hon. Friends at the Department of Employment.
Other allegations have been made—with what justification I cannot say. There has been an allegation that the stability of the vessel could have been affected by the structural amendments that were made when she passed into the hands of her new owners. There is also said to have been a history of engine trouble. It has been suggested that the ship sailed with a broken radio. One must ask what surveys had been carried out. Had there been any recent inspections of the vessel? There are regulations for port state inspection. Had the vessel been inspected while she was in British ports? 
I turn now to the question of ownership. The owner is officially shown as being Tropica Armadora SA, a company that is registered in Panama, but who are the real owners and who are the beneficial owners? While the

company may have been registered in Panama, thousands of miles away, I suggest that there is some responsibility nearer home. There is a relationship between this vessel and the remote highland village of Aberlour in Scotland.
I said that I would return to the action that was taken ashore when the vessel went missing. She sailed on the night of 9-10 December and was never heard of again. She was due in Seville on the evening of 14 December, but the alert was not given until 17 December, a week after she had sailed. It seems that it was only when relatives of the master and the engineer tried to make contact by radio on 16 December that it was realised that something was amiss. By that time, it was nearly a week since she had sailed.
Therefore, we need to ask, why did not the owners act sooner? Who managed the ship? Who was responsible for keeping in touch with her, and who was responsible for such disgraceful manning? According to a relative of the engineer, the Falmouth coastguard told her that the ship had been reported missing by the wife of the mate. The relatives of the other crew were not informed until 21 December, when the police broke the tragic news. There even seems to have been some doubt about who was on board. The relatives of another young lad were woken to be told that their son had been lost when, thank goodness, he was fast asleep in bed upstairs.
Mrs. Cramman, the wife of poor George, eventually received a letter dated 29 December, which was headed "Tropica Armadora", with no address and with a telephone number that I checked last night. It is in the village of Aberlour in the Scottish highlands. The letter was signed by Joanna Smith on behalf of the company. It enclosed a press release telling of the searches that had been carried out and listing the crew.
The press release "offered sincere condolences", but the letter that was addressed to Mrs. Cramman contained only the following words of sympathy:
I hope that these details may answer some of your questions on the matter, and I am only sorry that we have no further news of the vessel.
For and on behalf of the company.
I remind the House that the tragic bereavement was suffered over the Christmas holiday. A letter was sent to my constituent's widow on 5 January by solicitors acting for the company. It expressed the deepest sympathy and gave advice about how she should submit a claim to the insurance company.
The Falmouth coastguard gave an anxious relative the name and telephone number of Mrs. Smith in the highlands as being the person to contact about the missing ship. It seems that Mrs. Smith told the relative that she was a friend of the owner, Mr. Chris Douglas. I stress the word "owner" because, as I understand it, Chris Douglas happens to be the name of the vessel's mate. It seems that Mr. Douglas also came from the village of Aberlour. Was he also the owner or the part-owner? 
What do we know about the captain of the ship? The engineer, poor man, had also been signed on at the jobcentre in South Shields, although he was an experienced and qualified man. Was the captain also a part-owner? There is a big question mark over who the real owners are. Who are the directors of the company? Who was responsible for sending out this ship undermanned into the bay of Biscay in the middle of winter on a voyage that led to the deaths of the whole crew? Do the people who were responsible for that action reside in this country?
According to the Department of Employment, the advertisement was placed by a company called Laird Line. What is it? What was its role in the build-up to this tragedy? I suggest that a thorough investigation is clearly necessary. What happened to the ship? I suspect that we shall never know. However, we can seek to establish responsibility for the way in which she sailed, her condition and the undermanning of the ship.
If those responsible are within United Kingdom jurisdiction, they should be brought to account. Above all, we must take steps to prevent this from happening again. When the widow and mother of poor George Cramman came to see me in my constituency, the main message that they wanted me to put to the House and to the Ministry was that we must stop this happening again.
The ship was no doubt overwhelmed in a crisis in the stormy weather. Perhaps the cargo shifted. Clearly, the crew could not cope because of its lack of experienced men. The lack of a proper crew must have been a feature in the loss of the ship. An inquiry is needed to establish how that came to pass.
The Marine was a Bahamian-registered vessel. The investigation is therefore, rightly, being conducted by the authorities in the Bahamas. However, as all six crewmen were British, our marine accident investigation branch has asked for and been promised a copy of the Bahamas Government's report. As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a strong British connection. Indeed, there is a stronger connection with Britain than with the Bahamas. I doubt whether the ship had ever been anywhere near the Bahamas. The crew members were all United Kingdom nationals. They were recruited in this country. The ship sailed from Liverpool. It appears to be beneficially owned in this country. It seems that its management was in this country. There is a far clearer connection with us than with the Bahamas.
A further important queston must be asked. Are other ships with the same owners operating in the same way out of United Kingdom ports? That is a matter for inquiry by us rather than by the Bahamas Government. Such ships could be similarly operated by the same owners flying a different flag and would thus be of no concern whatever to the Bahamas Government. It would be interesting to know the terms of reference of the Bahamas inquiry. The British interest in the loss is much wider than that of the Bahamas Government.
I do not wish to prejudge the results of the inquiry by the Bahamas authorities, but serious questions are raised by the tragedy. They are questions of public concern in this country. I hope that the report of the Bahamas Government will be published so that we can all know what it says and can judge for ourselves whether it covers all the serious issues that have been raised. If it does not, the experienced British marine accident investigation branch should be called in to carry out its own inquiry.

Mr. Don Dixon: First, as a Whip I apologise for breaking the convention of the House and speaking in the debate. I have sat here for most of the night and as three of the crew of the Marine were my constituents, I feel that I have an interest in the matter.
Several weeks ago I supported the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) in an inquiry into the toxic waste plant at Pelaw, which is next to my constituency. I support

all that he has said on this matter and the information that he has given to the House is that which I also have. I fully support the disclosure that he made.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the tragedy took place during the Christmas period. Paul Wilson's father came to see me over the Christmas period to tell me of his concern and the lack of information that the families or next of kin had received. I wrote to the Minister on 3 January—I compliment him on having replied quickly—and I had a discussion with him in the Members' Lobby not long afterwards.
The next of kin and I support the call for an inquiry. One of the current problems is that the Bahamian inquiry will be in-house and its terms of reference will be narrow. It will concern only itself with the circumstances in which the vessel was lost rather than exploring the possible crew irregularities to which the hon. Member for Tynemouth referred. It will not consider the possible effect on the stability of the vessel following pre-sail structural modifications, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred.
The three ratings referred to had few qualifications and little sea service. That is in violation of International Maritime Organisation convention No. 74 concerning the certification of able seamen. That convention lays down provisions regarding the minimum age, the minimum period of service and the testing of a candidate's knowledge of seamanship.
I thank the hon. Member for Tynemouth for taking the opportunity to raise this important issue and I hope that the questions that he posed will be answered by the Minister.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Pa trick McLoughlin): First, through my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), I wish to express my sincere condolences and those of the House to the families who lost relatives as a result of the unfortunate accident. My hon. Friend has made a number of points relating to the Marine and I think that it would be best if I tried to answer as many of them as possible. I shall therefore not dwell on descriptions of the vessel or the accident, which my hon. Friend covered extremely well.
When the marine accident investigation branch learned that the vessel was missing, because of the United Kingdom interest, particularly the fact that all the crew were British citizens, it immediately contacted the Bahamian authorities. It was established that the Bahamas was carrying out a full investigation, and a copy of the eventual report was requested. That has been promised, and the MAIB has been advised that it can expect to receive a copy of that report in the middle of this year. It is understood that the report will be published.
My hon. Friend, from whose constituency one of those who was lost came, has asked that the MAIB should carry out an investigation into the loss of the vessel, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should consider a public formal investigation into the matter.
I accept that there is a considerable United Kingdom interest, and I do not take lightly the loss of six seamen—I am sure that no hon. Members do. The prime responsibility for investigating an accident on the high seas rests with the flag state, but I assure the House that MAIB maintains its contact with the Bahamas. With no survivors


and no wreckage having been recovered, the investigation will be very difficult, however much expertise is applied to it.
From its discussions, the MAIB is satisfied that the inquiry is covering the same ground that it would have covered. I have no reason to believe that the Bahamian inquiry will be less than thorough, and it would not be right to anticipate its findings. Therefore, I consider that it would be wrong for a separate investigation to be undertaken by the MAIB or for a formal investigation to be ordered, at present. It is important to emphasise "at present".
Minimum safe manning is a difficult area to regulate because there are no international conventions on safe manning, nor are there any international agreements on minimum safe manning scales for seagoing ships. However, there are resolutions on safe manning standards agreed by the International Maritime Organisation. Those standards are applied within the European region by a memorandum of understanding on port state control.
In the absence of international requirements, the United Kingdom introduced a voluntary safe manning scheme some years ago. That scheme embodies the principles of safe manning contained in International Maritime Organisation resolution A481 and the vast majority of United Kingdom owners see benefit in having safe manning certificates. Assessing minimum safe manning means that the crew shall include sufficient officers and ratings, with the appropriate skills and experience, to ensure safe operation.
My Department has seen no evidence that the Marine had been issued with a safe manning certificate by the Bahamian marine administration. The Marine was a vessel of 1,397 gross registered tonnes operating in an area defined by United Kingdom regulations as the extended European trading area. In making an assessment of the minimum safe manning for a United Kingdom ship, my Department would require detailed information about the ship, including her equipment, the level of automation fitted and the crewing arrangements, together with a study of the ship's plans. It is possible that a visit to the ship would have been made.
My hon. Friend asked when the Marine was last inspected by the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport's marine surveyor from the London marine office inspected the Marine on 18 October 1989 under the port state regulations to which I referred. Six deficiencies were discovered, most of which were relatively minor. They did not warrant the ship's detention. I hope that that shows that the ship had been inspected.

Mr. Trotter: I take it that that was a structural survey. Presumably, there was no checking on the manning.

Mr. McLoughlin: I should like to give my hon. Friend the exact details about that. It would be better if I wrote to him because I wish to cover a number of other points and time is marching on.
The 1978 international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers—STCW—specifies the mandatory minimum requirement for officer certification and for ratings forming part of a navigational or engine room watch. The 1978 STCW

convention came into force on 28 April 1984 and there are currently 77 contracting states. Both the Bahamas and the United Kingdom have signed the convention.
In terms of ratings forming part of a navigational watch on a seagoing ship of more than 200 gross registered tonnes, the convention requires approved seagoing service, including not less than six months' sea experience in navigational watchkeeping duties unless the rating has undergone special training, which would include a period of seagoing service of not less than two months. There is no evidence that any of the ratings who served on the Marine met this requirement. While the convention does not prohibit the carriage of unqualified or trainee ratings for the purpose of training, any such ratings—as my hon. Friend said—would need to be carried in addition to the minimum crew specified for safe operation.
My Department requires that any person or agency supplying seafarers to a ship in a United Kingdom port should have a licence. To supply seafarers in those circumstances without a licence is an offence, but there are the following exceptions to this rule—the owner of the vessel, the master or mate, or any person in the full-time employment of the owner may recruit without a licence. In addition, an agent may supply his own employees provided that they remain in his employment and he is responsible for paying their wages and for all other conditions of service. The agent is regarded as the owner of the vessel for this purpose and is known as a ship management company or "manning agent".
I now turn to the jobcentre involvement in the recruitment of the crew members of the Marine. On 19 September 1989 South Shields jobcentre was notified by Laird Line Ltd. of vacancies for a ship's engineer and trainee seafarers. The directors of Laird Line were the master and mate of the Marine, who were fully entitled to recruit the crew for that vessel. Sadly, both lost their lives when the vessel sank.
The jobcentre accepted the vacancy for trainee seafarers on the basis that full training, leading to formal qualifications, would be given. As their procedures require, the jobcentre staff checked that the vacancies complied with equal opportunities legislation.
On 25 September 1989, Mr. Douglas, the mate of the Marine, interviewed in South Shields jobcentre people who had expressed interest in the vacancies. Mr. Douglas told the jobcentre staff that he would be offering employment to a qualified engineer and three trainees. However, not all took up his offer, and the crew who sailed on 9-10 December were not all drawn from the original jobcentre recruitment exercise.
Although satisfied that the jobcentre acted correctly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been considering whether jobcentre procedures for handling merchant shipping vacancies need to be revised in the light of the Marine incident. This has been the subject of correspondence between the Department of Employment and my hon. Friend and Opposition Members. I assure my hon. Friend that he can expect a full response in the near future. I hope that he will find it helpful.

Mr. Dixon: I understand that the Minister is trying to answer as many questions as possible in the few remaining minutes of the debate, but does he accept that jobcentres are Government agencies and that any youngsters going to them to be interviewed and then to be recruited will


naturally feel that everything is above board and that it will be safe for them to take the job on offer? When incidents such as the Marine tragedy occur, it would seem that youngsters have been misled.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is examining the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will be satisfied with my right hon. Friend's response.
As I have said, the death of six seamen is not taken lightly by me or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When the MAIB receives the Bahamian report into the accident it will consider—

Mr. Trotter: I appreciate all that my hon. Friend has said, and his response has been helpful, but I cannot help thinking that the Bahamian inquiry will be more restricted than the inquiry that ought to be held. Will he take that on board?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am about to do so.
When the MAIB receives the Bahamian report into the accident, it will consider it very carefully, in the knowledge that the vessel was lost without trace and that there were no survivors. If the chief inspector of marine accidents is of the opinion that the inquiry was any less thorough than an investigation that his inspectors would have carried out in the same circumstances, an investigation by his branch will be given due consideration.
We shall await the report of the Bahamian inquiry and then judge what lessons can be learnt and what action can be taken to avoid such a tragedy ever happening again. It was a nasty tragedy, as is any accident which involves loss of life. Given the time of year and the circumstances, it was especially regrettable. I repeat my condolences and those, I am sure, of the whole House, to all those who lost relatives in the accident. I hope that we shall be able to learn lessons from it so that we can try to avoid any such accident happening again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Nine o'clock.